Paul Goggins: I acknowledge to the right hon. Gentleman that precisely 708 non-Catholic applicants finished higher in the merit pool than Catholic applicants who were appointed. I know that it is disappointing for the individuals involved, but it is very important that the PSNI fully reflect the composition of the community. More than anyone, the right hon. Gentleman will understand that that underpins the new political settlement in Northern Ireland.

Mark Tami: what steps he is taking to address the historical issues which continue to influence Northern Ireland's political development.

Ronnie Campbell: what recent steps he has taken to address longstanding problems which influence Northern Ireland's social and political development.

Mark Durkan: I commend the Secretary of State on his appointment of the panel on the past, on top of his other good work in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that the panel could be well guided by the Russian proverb that says, "To dwell on the past is to lose one eye; to forget the past is to lose both eyes," and that as the panel takes forward its work it must be victim-centred, victim-sensitive and address the needs of all victims and the wider community in terms of truth, recognition and remembrance?

Stephen Crabb: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Animals Act 1971 to limit strict liability for damage done by animals.
	My Bill would amend the Animals Act 1971 by limiting its scope to dangerous species and, particularly, to dangerous individual animals, and for connected purposes. There are many Members on both sides of the House who enjoy, or whose families enjoy, horse riding. I am always delighted to be told by colleagues of their excellent holidays on the beautiful Pembrokeshire coast, and I know of several who have enjoyed riding in the county of Pembrokeshire, which is home to many good stables and livery yards.
	In the past 12 months, an estimated 4.3 million people throughout the United Kingdom from all social backgrounds will have ridden on at least one occasion, and more than £730 million will have been spent on riding lessons. The British equine industry is now worth around £4 billion each year to our economy, yet it is facing huge pressures as a result of the enormous increase in insurance costs which now make running an equestrian centre a very challenging proposition. The Association of British Riding Schools tells me that, in the past four years alone, 650 riding schools have closed down as a result of insurance costs. Some riding centres have been refused insurance cover altogether.
	At the heart of this problem of soaring costs is an unfair liability regime brought about by a badly drafted Act of Parliament, and there is an urgent need for clarification of the law if more businesses are not to fail. Horse riding is under threat from the pernicious reach of the compensation culture, and it is the purpose of my Bill to seek to tackle this problem. In introducing the Bill, I seek to clarify the scope of the Animals Act 1971 in respect of liability for harm caused by non-dangerous animals. A House of Lords legal judgment in the 2003 case of Mirhavedy  v. Henley widened the scope of that Act so that strict, non-fault-based liability can be faced by keepers of any animal which can display dangerous behaviour at particular times or in particular circumstances.
	The Act originally intended that this strict liability regime should apply only to the owners of dangerous animals—dangerous animals being wild animals such as lions, tigers, deadly snakes or insects, or a specific psychotic domestic animal. However, the effect of the 2003 judgment is that strict liability now applies to the keeper of non-dangerous animals behaving in a normal way where a pure accident occurs. This is why stable owners can now be held liable for a horse that bolts when it is spooked. The impact of the 2003 judgment will not stop at the equine sector; it could affect owners of all livestock. Farmers, for example, could be held liable if a cow acts aggressively to protect a calf and injures a dog walker.
	It might be helpful if I take a moment to explain in more detail the legal background to this matter. Section 2(2) of the 1971 Act addresses damage caused by non-dangerous animals and is at the heart of the problem. That section has been repeatedly criticised for its opaque language, and there is widespread agreement that the wording is unclear and needs to be changed. Section 2(2) places strict liability on the keeper of non-dangerous animals that cause harm where the following points are satisfied: first, the damage is of a kind that the animal, unless restrained, was likely to cause, or that, if caused by the animal, was likely to be severe; secondly, and crucially, the likelihood of the damage or of its being severe was due to characteristics of the animal that are not normally found in animals of the same species, or are not normally so found except at particular times or in particular circumstances; and thirdly, those characteristics were known to the keeper.
	In the case of Mirhavedy  v. Henley the court was deciding the meaning of the second condition and whether it referred just to a particularly dangerous individual animal or, in addition, to a perfectly normal animal that was displaying dangerous characteristics typical of the species at particular times or in particular circumstances. Clearly, the latter interpretation is of much broader scope, and that interpretation was ultimately favoured by the House of Lords by a majority decision. In that case, the Henleys were found not to have been negligent in an accident in which their horses had been spooked and had escaped on to a road causing serious injury to Mr. Mirhavedy, who had been driving on that road; but they were found to be liable to pay for the harm caused.
	That judgment, and that interpretation of the Act, is now having a negative impact on the equine sector. For example, Mrs. Ingrid Evans in my constituency, who runs a riding school at Llanwnda stables near Fishguard, has seen her insurance premium rise from £858 in 2001 to more than £7,000 a year today. She has had to increase her charges to try to cover the costs, but is concerned that she is now pricing out many low-income people from enjoying the sport and recreation.
	The Country Land and Business Association, whose lawyers have drafted my Bill, and to which I pay tribute for its tireless campaign for a change in the law, has a member who runs a riding school and faced a claim under the Act. That resulted from an accident during a riding lesson when a third party frightened the horse accidentally. Again, there was no fault, but there was liability. That has created enormous problems for that riding school in obtaining insurance at a premium that could be afforded. It is now clear that insurance is getting more expensive and harder to obtain right across the equine sector, even for those who have not had an actual claim against them.
	Hon. Members may be aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) introduced a similar Bill under the ten-minute rule last year: the Accidents Involving Animals (Strict Liability) Bill. That Bill also sought to amend the 1971 Act following the 2003 judgment. It failed to get the necessary time, but I am pleased that my hon. Friend has expressed his support for my Bill. My Bill is different from his, however, in that it does not seek to make it a defence in law for the owner of an animal involved in an accident to show that he took all reasonable steps to keep the animal in a secure enclosure. Instead, it seeks to refocus the scope of the Act by clarifying the language of section 2(2)(b). The reasons for that are twofold.
	First, the 1971 Act is about strict liability and, quite rightly, there should be no reasonable defence to strict liability. If a person owns a dangerous animal such as a poisonous snake that harms a third party, it is right that that person should be strictly liable and have no defence of reasonable care. That was the intention behind the 1971 Act. Secondly, with a defence of reasonable care, no insurer will risk going to court and the defence not being accepted. Insurers will continue to settle out of court, keeping insurance premiums as high as they are now.
	Under my Bill, however, riding schools, farmers and pet owners will be subject to the usual common law negligence and health and safety laws, meaning that if an owner or business has taken all possible safeguards they are unlikely to be blamed for an accident. That would encourage owners to take out third-party insurance but would remove liability for genuine accidents. Owners of dangerous animals would, quite rightly, continue to be liable.
	I am delighted that the Government have signalled their support for the principles of my Bill. I am also encouraged that an early-day motion that I tabled on the matter during the 2005-06 Session attracted more than 150 signatures, and that that same early-day motion, which has been re-tabled this Session by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), is also attracting wide cross-party support. I am grateful to all those Members who have told me in the past few days that they are very supportive of what I am seeking to do, and to those hon. Members on both sides of the House who are co-sponsoring the Bill. As well as the support of the Country Land and Business Association, the Bill has the support of the Thoroughbred Breeders' Association, the British Equine Veterinary Association, the National Farmers Union and the Countryside Alliance.
	The Government are right to state their support for the equine sector in this country. That sector is not only an important and growing part of the rural economy and an avenue of potential diversification for farmers, but it plays a vital part in ensuring health and recreation is enjoyed by the nation, particularly younger people. The House will be aware of the many excellent schemes that provide riding opportunities for disabled people and children from disadvantaged backgrounds. Such initiatives may be at risk unless action is taken soon.
	The unintended result of the 1971 Act has been unfair damage to rural businesses, recreation and tourism. My Bill would redress that injustice while ensuring that those whose non-dangerous animals caused harm due to their negligence could still be held to account. I commend this Bill to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Stephen Crabb, Daniel Kawczynski, Mr. Richard Benyon, Peter Luff, Mr. James Gray, Mr. David Drew, Mr. John Grogan, Mr. Edward O'Hara, Martin Salter, Mr. Roger Williams, Nick Harvey and Mr. Elfyn Llwyd.

Vera Baird: New clauses 7 and 9 and amendments Nos. 43 to 63 deal with a single topic, which is that those who have served in judicial office on a salaried basis should be facilitated to continue to do so on a fee-paid basis, offering as they do an important additional resource for the peaks and troughs of court and tribunal business, and to preserve their tried and tested specialist skills. Where someone has served successfully in salaried office, it would be a waste of resources if he had to go through a Judicial Appointments Commission selection process in order to become, as it were, part-time, but every case must be carefully considered. A business case will be required in each instance, and the individual must of course be guaranteed to be up to the job.
	Originally, in clauses 53 and 54 the provision was available for deputy district judges and deputy and temporary additional masters and registrars of the Supreme Court. The Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice have agreed that it would be better if the provisions were amended and extended. Such a use of staff was regarded as deployments appropriately carried out by the Lord Chief Justice, but the two men have agreed that it is more appropriate to call them appointments and to say that they will be done by the Lord Chancellor, but he will required to obtain the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice in relation to appointments in the ordinary courts, and of the senior president of tribunals in relation to tribunal appointments. The provisions will in addition apply to all the judicial offices at the level of circuit judge and below in the ordinary courts and to all tribunal appointments made by the Lord Chancellor.
	I should be happy to take the House through the details of how all the amendments culminate in what I have set out, but essentially I have outlined their import. They will facilitate the use of a formerly salaried chairman, judge or master to work on a part-time paid basis, either on retirement or when they have held office in the previous two years. The provisions contain all the checks and balances to which I have referred, but if more amplification is needed, I shall of course respond to any comments that are made.
	New clause 8 sets out amendments to the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act 1951. It arises from an unforeseen interaction between the 2005 Act and the anticipated Armed Forces Act 2006. The effect of this interaction, if not remedied, would mean that certain judicial office holders and lawyers who sit as judge advocates would no longer be eligible to do so without having to apply afresh for their posts.
	Currently, the Judge Advocate General can appoint judge advocates from a pool of 12 judicial office holders or lawyers to individual courts martial. That will change once the new Armed Forces Act comes into force, as all appointments will require selection by the Judicial Appointments Commission. That could cause difficulty for the current band of 12 people from whom court martial officials are drawn. If they were to require selection by the JAC, we could lose a good deal of specialist expertise, as the people involved have worked in this field for many years, and are regarded with esteem.
	The problem has been discussed with the Ministry of Defence and with the Office of the Judge Advocate General. To achieve our purpose, it is necessary to amend the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act 1951. New clause 8 does that by adding three new subsections to the 1951 Act. It requires that the Lord Chancellor, who will be in charge of the appointments, seek the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice before making any such appointment. I assure the House that new clause 8 is necessary for the continued smooth running of the courts martial system, and I trust that hon. Members will be able to support it.
	New clause 10 relates to the appointment of the chairman of the Law Commission. As hon. Members know, the Law Commission is a statutory body set up in 1965, and it comprises a chairman and four other commissioners. All are appointed by the Lord Chancellor from persons who appear to be suitably qualified by the holding of judicial office or by practical or academic experience of the law.
	The first chairman was the then Sir Leslie Scarman, who was appointed in 1965, and the present chairman is the delightful and extremely effective Sir Terence Etherton, who was appointed in 2006. In practice, the policy of all the successive Lord Chancellors has been to appoint a candidate from among the judges of the High Court. That has brought significant advantages of independence, expertise and prestige to the Law Commission, and has helped to make it the internationally well regarded law reform body that it is today.
	We propose to amend the Law Commissions Act 1965 so that in future the Lord Chancellor can appoint only a senior judge as chairman of the Law Commission. The change is necessary because the code of practice on ministerial appointments of the Commissioner for Public Appointments requires that an appointment should be open to all those who are qualified to be appointed. Therefore, the fact that the chairmanship of the Law Commission would have to be open to judges, barristers, solicitors and legal academics could deter applications from judges and could deny the Law Commission the very important benefits that flow from the appointment of a senior High Court judge. There are also consequential amendments, but I hope that I need spend no more time persuading hon. Members that the proposed change is wholly desirable.
	Finally, new clause 13 rectifies a technical lacuna in a section of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 that resulted inadvertently from its modification by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. The 1993 Act prescribes a normal compulsory retirement age of 70 for judicial office holders, subject to transitional provisions for later retirement dates for those already sitting at the date of commencement. Section 26 of the 1993 Act makes further provision to enable the service of judicial office holders to be extended, on a year-to-year basis, up to the age of 75—that is, beyond what is otherwise their compulsory retirement date. That is an example of flexibility in the interests of justice, in exceptional cases. It means, for instance, that an office holder should be retained if his or her specialist knowledge causes particular difficulty in finding a replacement.
	Paragraph 228 of schedule 4 to the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 modifies the Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 to reflect the new division of functions between the Executive and the judiciary. By reassigning the power for the extension of service of judicial office holders, it catered for the exercise of that power in relation to judicial office holders exercising jurisdiction exclusively in England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. However, it has latterly come to light that there is a lacuna, because the changes did not cater for those who exercise cross-border jurisdiction. Consequently, we have sought to close that lacuna, and again I hope that I need persuade the House no further that that is an entirely desirable development.

Henry Bellingham: I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes)—my hon. Friend, in this context—said. We would certainly support him on new clause 4. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) obviously carried out a good deal of research before preparing his new clauses and amendments, to which he spoke with eloquence. When I saw the amendment paper, I was amazed that so many of his proposals were similar to those tabled by the official Opposition in Committee. We devoted a substantial time to debating this subject in Committee. The Minister was able to explain that some of our fears were unfounded, and we were comfortable on some fronts after hearing what she said. However, there are many aspects of the Bill that still cause us great concern. That is why Conservative Members will be minded to support the Lib Dems on new clause 4, which would require bailiffs to wear uniforms—we tabled such an amendment in Committee—and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby on new clause 6, which would provide for regulation by an outside body.
	The Bill gives bailiffs a substantial number of extra powers, such as increased powers to enter homes. It also takes away existing constraints. As the hon. Member for Great Grimsby pointed out, that is happening at a time when the amount of debt in our society is increasing, as is the pressure on individuals throughout our constituencies. More and more people are being persuaded to take out debt, or bamboozled into doing so.
	The Government have created an additional 2,900 criminal offences and there are many new fines and penalties. To some extent, the Government have warped our sense of what is criminal. Many bailiff actions stem from crimes that resulted in fixed penalty notices. There has been a huge proliferation in the use of such notices. There is great concern in the enforcement industry that many Government Departments have created a situation in which more people will get into debt, which will have to be enforced.
	I should make it clear that people who run up debts should of course pay those debts, whether they are owed to companies or to other individuals. There should be a mechanism by which debts may be enforced. If people owe money to government-related organisations for council tax or because of fines, including parking fines, those debts should be paid, because if they are not paid, other taxpayers suffer. However, at the same time, there must be a proper system for protecting the vulnerable. We have tabled amendments in a later group that would specifically protect the vulnerable.
	Everyone who has examined this issue will know that the vast majority of bailiffs behave responsibly. There is no doubt that the industry prides itself on high standards. However, as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby pointed out, and as we discussed at length in Committee, a small minority of bailiffs bring the industry into disrepute by going completely over the top. We have all come across examples in our constituencies of bailiffs acting in an intimidating way.
	Various examples have been cited by citizens advice bureaux, including my local citizens advice bureau. A CAB in Somerset was looking after a 44-year-old woman who had been visited by a bailiff collecting council tax arrears. The bailiff said that he wanted immediate payment for the full sum owing. He tried to enter and stated that he would go to all the rooms and remove children's possessions, white goods—including the cooker—and all furniture. The bailiff stated that for every half an hour he sat outside the house he would charge £50, which he did after sitting there for exactly 30 minutes. Owing to the bailiff's threatening behaviour, the woman's partner made a payment, but only by using the rent money, which moved the debt problem elsewhere.
	A CAB in Bedfordshire told me about a woman whom it was looking after. Sadly, her husband died relatively young, and the next day a bailiff called at her house about council tax arrears. The woman explained that her husband had just died and that because he had not made a will, and she would therefore have to go through probate, there would not be enough money in the estate to pay the council tax. She thus asked the bailiff to wait for a while, but he refused and said that unless she paid at least £150 then and there, he would seize her goods. He also threatened her with arrest. The behaviour of that bailiff was completely contrary to the Government's guidelines for the enforcement industry, which make it clear that people in vulnerable situations should be protected.
	While a minority of bailiffs behave in such a way, there is a need for proper outside regulation, which brings us to the two key amendments in the group. New clause 2 relates to the Security Industry Authority. For those who have not been following our debates carefully, I should explain that the SIA is a private sector organisation approved by the Government, which regulates various private sector organisations. Under the Government's plans, private bailiffs, rather than court and Government-employed bailiffs, will be regulated by the SIA. We support those proposals because, as we said in Committee, if the Government will not introduce full independent regulation not just for private bailiffs but for the whole industry, we will reluctantly accept the second-best option of the SIA, because a step in the right direction is better than no step at all.
	In essence, new clause 2 provides that the greater powers for bailiffs under the Bill, especially powers to enter people's homes, should not come into effect until SIA regulation is implemented. We have various concerns that are relevant to new clause 2. Can the Minister tell the House when the new SIA system will be in place? I am concerned that it may not be for quite a while, which means that it is even more important to include in the Bill the provisions proposed by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey. The Bill may be in its final stages—it will have its Third Reading this afternoon and will in due course receive Royal Assent—but we need to hear from the Minister exactly when the regulation under the SIA will be in place.
	Can the Minister also tell us how the proposed new certification scheme will work alongside regulation by the SIA? We discussed the matter in Committee at some length so she is well aware that the present certification scheme is flawed because many local authorities do not insist on their contracted bailiffs complying with the existing scheme. Will the new scheme work properly? One of the problems under the SIA plans is that a debtor will not be able to get redress even if the bailiff loses his or her licence.
	I want to pick up on a point made by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, which causes me concern, too. We have been told time and again of the feeling in the bailiff industry and among many organisations working hard to try to protect the vulnerable, such as the Church of England, the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust, the Child Poverty Action Group and the CAB, that because bailiffs collect billions of pounds for central and local government the Government have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, with regulation as light-touch as possible.
	Philip Evans, chair of the Enforcement Law Reform Group, made a telling remark the other day, which he will not mind me quoting:
	"Among police and judiciary there is an institutionalised complacency about the behaviour of bailiffs."
	His organisation is not like the CAB or the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust, whose approach might be that most bailiffs should be looked at suspiciously; his were the remarks of someone who represents the enforcement and bailiff industry. The industry, too, is calling for greater regulation, because it realises that the actions of a small minority of bailiffs—including the examples to which I referred and many more—are doing huge damage to the reputation of bailiffs generally. That is why the industry wants regulation.
	It is worth looking at what other outside third parties have said about regulation. Professor J. Beatson, professor of public law at Cambridge university, produced a report for the Lord Chancellor in 2000, which had quite an impact on the subsequent Green Paper. Professor Beatson made it clear that he felt that independent regulation for bailiffs was absolutely essential. He said that the arguments for bailiffs having extra powers could be countenanced only in the context of proper outside regulation.
	Can the Minister comment on why the Government did not follow the recommendations in the Green Paper and why they have not listened to the views of many organisations, such as the Enforcement Services Association and the Association of Civil Enforcement Agencies, as well as the voluntary bodies that spend their time trying to help vulnerable people? Yes, we are taking a small step forward with the SIA. I do not want to be churlish, because we advocated that move in Committee; we pushed hard for it and we thank the Minister for agreeing. We may even be entitled to give ourselves a pat on the back for that small step forward, but it does not go far enough, especially when bailiffs are being given more powers.
	From the examples given in Committee and in this debate, we know that in many cases bailiffs misrepresent their legal powers. People are knocking on doors pretending to be someone they are not, which is why new clause 4, proposed by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey, says that bailiffs should wear a distinctive uniform or carry more than merely a card as identification. We debated that matter in Committee and the Minister was not happy about the idea of bailiffs turning up in uniform. She took the view that it was bad enough for a vulnerable person living in a block of flats if the police came round, so if a bailiff in uniform came to their flat, word would quickly get out that they were in debt. I entirely accept the need to strike a balance, but the existing situation is not satisfactory.

Vera Baird: First, may I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) how much I would have welcomed him to the Committee? He brings to the issue the particular strength of feeling he derives from the personal experience suffered by his daughter, which he set out in the Chamber at a lamentably late hour of the night some months ago. He brings to it, too, his usual characteristic concern for the poor and underprivileged sectors of his constituency. I, too, have poor and underprivileged sectors in my constituency, and I would have welcomed his work in the Committee.
	Both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) contextualised the changes we have to make when they spoke of the rising tide of debt. It is the Government's view that whether one, 10 or however many people are misused by bailiffs who exercise their powers excessively it is too many, and we will stop that happening. I assure my hon. Friend he is wrong to say that this part of the legislation is the worst part. In my view, it is one of the most important parts, and perhaps the best.
	I reject the assertion of hon. Member for North-West Norfolk that the Government have not listened. We have been most consultative. We consulted as we put together the documents that preceded the Bill, we consulted before its publication and we have consulted throughout its progress through the House. I do not accept that vigorous criticisms can be levelled at the use of penalty notices and so on for lower-level crimes. They seem to me to be appropriate, proportionate and speedy ways of remedying minor abuses and misbehaviour. The legislation on the power to enter premises to impose penalties or to ensure that they are paid is not in the present Bill, but was passed more than two years ago, richly supported by the Conservatives.
	The SIA is not a private industry body; it is a non-departmental public body. Let me make that clear, lest I forget to emphasise the point in the course of the debate.
	I shall now deal systematically with the amendments in the group. On the question of certification running alongside the SIA's jurisdiction, it is intended that the certification process should endure only until the authority takes over responsibility for licensing.

Vera Baird: The hon. Gentleman appositely points out that this is a sort of barrister-fest, given the background of the three Front-Bench spokespeople. I had not really digested that point, but I assert that our proceedings are none the worse for that. I have never come across partisanship in a judge; let me make that totally clear. Not every county court judge will have the responsibility that we are discussing, and there are county court judges who have those responsibilities now. It makes obvious sense that if there is a major firm of bailiffs in an area, the local county court judge becomes much more experienced. They are exposed to the risks and difficulties of the process, and therefore become masters, or mistresses, of dealing with them. I say mistresses, as one or two of the county courts judges are women. It is our intention to build on that expertise. We intend the county court regime to be imposed with considerable rigour. As I say, we intend to put the requirements of schedule 12 forward as part of the certification process.
	As hon. Members will remember from Committee, bailiffs will have to be trained before they qualify for the certification process. They will also have to put up a bond, and the judge can order the forfeiture of that bond, or part of it, if the bailiff is in breach of the terms of their certification. As hon. Members will remember, there is a regime in schedule 12 for bringing actions, whether for damages and related loss, or abuse of power. Pretty well every remedy that one could wish for against an enforcement agent is listed in schedule 12. As I have said, we intend those remedies to carry across the enforcement industry, but they can be applied to the county court.
	I hope that we have a reasonably foolproof framework, because that is certainly our intention, notwithstanding the slightly uncomfortable transitional phase that must take place. I hope that we have a satisfactory framework in place. The SIA supports the penalties principle and the characteristics for enforcing regulations that are featured in Professor Macrory's work. Over the next few months, the SIA will consider how the Macrory toolkit of new regulatory sanctions can be integrated with its existing approach, which is largely based on compliance. In partnership with the Home Office, the SIA will consider what steps it needs to take to access those new tools. In particular, the SIA will look at how the additional sanctions could help to support its compliance activity and its overall aim of protecting the public.
	Paragraph 66 of schedule 12, to which I have already made free reference, sets out new remedies that will be available to the debtor against an enforcement agent who breaches the provisions of the new law. As I have said, the remedies include damages for loss. There is a procedure that will enable the court to deal with complaints such as those relating to the overcharging of fees. The enforcement agent would be liable if anyone whom he takes on to premises to assist him breaches any of the provisions in schedule 12. The assistant, and of course the enforcement agent, will be personally liable if they commit an offence under ordinary criminal law.
	Under clause 58, an offence is committed if a person purports to act as an enforcement agent without being authorised to do so. The maximum penalty—and it is not a penny too much, in my view—is £5,000. Additionally, there are other avenues of redress, for example through the local authority ombudsman, if the enforcement agent is sent by the local authority. Obviously, we will have to develop appropriate complaints handling procedures with the SIA, the Home Office and all stakeholders, so that the SIA is always informed of complaints that require targeted intervention and investigation, however they fit into the framework. It is primarily through regulation that we will drive up standards across the industry. In particular, as I have said, strict competences and conditions will be set for individuals who apply for a licence.
	That is all that I wanted to say about new clause 6, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby. I hope that I have allayed his concerns through my best endeavours. My officials have worked very hard to make sure that I am in a position to use those best endeavours to try to deal with his complaints. I have said, and will say again, that the will of the Government is that there should be proper licensing, proper regulation and proper complaints procedures to ensure that the enforcement agency sector no longer produces the kind of horrors of which we have heard.
	Amendments Nos. 33 to 35 concern certification, and as the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk said, they effectively replicate amendments tabled by the Conservatives in Committee in the Commons, and in Grand Committee in the other place. Our position on the certification of Crown employees has already been made clear, but let me restate it: I do not believe that it is necessary for them to fall within the new regime. The Government have little or no control over the training, conduct and discipline of enforcement agents. In contrast, Her Majesty's Courts Service has a large degree of control over agents such as county court bailiffs. Other departments, such as Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, have similarly high levels of control over their own enforcement staff.
	County court bailiffs and civilian enforcement officers in the magistrates courts are subject to civil service recruitment procedures, and the civil service code governs their behaviour. They are subject to strict controls relating to conduct and discipline under civil service disciplinary procedures, and complaints against them can be made to the appropriate court manager. They are also subject to continuous training and development, which is provided by their departments, and of course they are subject to compulsory criminal record checks. Although we can insist that such standards be adhered to within our own departments, we have no such power outside our departments, hence the need for certification. However, it is not needed for our own employees. It is widely acknowledged that the problem is private sector bailiffs; they are the source of most of the complaints about the activities of enforcement agents. Figures provided by Citizens Advice show that well over 90 per cent. of the complaints that it receives on the subject relate to that sector. It is at that sector that we must target the comprehensive system of regulation.
	I want to reiterate what my noble Friend Baroness Ashton said on Third Reading in the other place, and what I said in Committee about Crown employees: the Government are committed to ensuring a common set of standards and a common appearance—that gives an indication of the subject that I shall move on to next—across the enforcement industry, built around a high standard of training and professionalism across the public and private sectors. We are considering what we can do on the subject of common information and a central register of enforcement agents, so that debtors can verify that the person on the doorstep has the necessary authority.
	Amendments Nos. 21 and 24 are unnecessary. Amendment No. 21 would mean that enforcement functions could not be carried out by those who assist the enforcement agent in his presence and under his direction. Enforcement agents need to take other persons on to premises with them for practical reasons, for example when they are dealing with large-scale business or industrial premises. They may need assistance in taking an inventory or removing goods that need packaging and safeguarding; for those tasks, expertise is essential. Frequently, of course, they require the assistance of a locksmith. If we insist that those functions cannot be carried out by someone assisting the enforcement officer under his direction and in his presence—that is what is required—it will make the whole process of taking control of goods so lengthy and complex that it is virtually unworkable.
	Amendment No. 24 would have far-reaching consequences that, I guess, were not intended. For many statutory debts, such as debts owed to national or local government bodies, the statutory power to enforce, using certain methods, is placed in the hands of the relevant Secretary of State. The Secretary of State then confers that power on another person working on his behalf. He may confer it on a member of staff in the relevant organisation, or on a company that provides the relevant services, by means of a contract. If the amendment were made, the effect would be that only those on whom the relevant statutory enforcement power was conferred could carry out the function of enforcement. I am sure that is not what my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby intends, and I shall go on to explain how catastrophic it would be if the Secretary of State alone could carry out those functions.

Vera Baird: My hon. Friend makes a good point. At the moment, that is an important omission for public purposes, but once the network is in place the problem will diminish immensely. May I therefore return to my argument? Obviously, my hon. Friend did not intend that only the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions could carry out the enforcement of child support legislation, so I assume that he will not persevere with his proposal. By smiling happily at me, he appears to indicate that I am correct.
	May I turn to the question of uniforms? As I said in Committee and on Second Reading, I well understand the sentiments that underpins the proposal that all enforcement agents should wear a uniform or carry a means of compulsory identification. I was initially attracted to the notion of a uniform, but I thought that I had persuaded the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey in Committee to agree that it was not such a good idea as it appeared. Perhaps I have done so, as new clause 4 includes the words,
	"or other means of identification".
	Although the hon. Gentleman has suggested that he intends to press the new clause to a Division, I hope that he will be satisfied by my reply. I think that we all recall the touching account by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) in Committee of bailiffs coming to her home as a child. Not only did they take away goods, as they were empowered to do, but they wore what she described as the unfailingly identifiable uniform from those long-ago days of a bowler hat. Everyone knew that the bailiffs had come, so it was extra humiliating for her and her family.
	The enforcement industry says with considerable force that uniforms make such a person identifiable not merely to the person whose home they have approached but to everyone else. It points out that from time to time, lamentably, even fire service personnel are attacked when they go into the community, so it fears that if its members were obliged to wear a recognisable uniform they would be more subject to attack. It is therefore a thornier issue than anyone first appreciated, but the reference in new clause 4 to "other means of identification" is the crux of the matter. I agree entirely that an enforcement agent must be clearly and easily identifiable to a debtor and readily accountable for his actions. Paragraph 26 of schedule 12 requires an enforcement agent to show the debtor and any person who appears to be in charge of the premises evidence of his identity and his authority to enter those premises. We are considering what form that evidence might take but, as I said in Committee, I am keen to introduce a single form of identification for all agents, with a unique identifying number—a photograph is probably important, too—so that a debtor approached by such a person at their front door knows exactly who there are, what their status is, precisely what authority they have to be there and, where appropriate, how to complain about an agent's actions.
	I respectfully suggest to the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey that, once again, I am in a position to demonstrate the political will to ensure that there is compliance with all of that in the regime that we have set up under the Bill. I invite him to consider the fact that there is no need to press his new clause to a vote. It is not apposite in our view to include all that detail in the Bill, as we will ensure that the issue is properly covered. Indeed, we would be very happy to consult and negotiate with him, or those people whom he nominates for consultation, to try to advance the matter powerfully. The exact form of identification will be determined after consultation with all the relevant stakeholders. In passing, the new clause appears to contain a flaw that was part of the proposal tabled in Committee, too, as it appears to suggest that enforcement agents would have to wear their uniform all the time. They might find it a little oppressive at the enforcement agents' annual ball if they were required to wear their epaulettes—that might be an unintended imposition. As I said before, I think with characteristic wit, would the agent have to wear his uniform in bed? That is not the reason why we oppose the new clause: on a serious note, it is just unnecessary.
	I appreciate the sentiments behind new clause 2 and amendments Nos. 5 and 42, and I restate the commitment that I gave in Committee. We will not allow enforcement agents to apply for a warrant to use reasonable force to enter domestic premises until we have full regulation of enforcement agents under the SIA. However, as I explained in Committee, chapter 1 of part 3, which the proposals would amend, is about much more than forced entry. It will introduce a great deal of valuable protection for debtors, including fixed dates and times at which enforcement agents can come to a premises; limits to methods of entry; exemption of goods from seizure; a single fee structure; and new remedies when enforcement agents break the law. There is no reason whatsoever to wait to implement all those protections until the SIA procedure is in place. New clause 2 and amendments Nos. 5 and 42 would prevent us from doing everything that we intend to do, and would mean that we would have to wait months and probably years before we could protect the public in the way in which all hon. Members intend.
	Hon. Members will recall that a clause identical to new clause 5 was debated in Committee, and I remain of the view that the provision is not necessary. Clause 57 and paragraph 13 of schedule 12 already make provision for what the new clause is seeking to achieve. In particular, the provisions in new clause 5(1), (2) and (3) are very similar to those in clause 57. New clause 5(4), which deals with regulations governing procedures for taking control of goods, is nearly the same as paragraph 13(3) of schedule 12. I remain unconvinced of the merits of new clause 5(5), which seeks to exclude liabilities when securing goods on the highway, but does not cover goods secured on premises. Bailiffs would therefore have to take a different approach when taking control of goods depending whether they did so on the highway or on premises. That is likely to result in confusion, and it would go completely against our efforts to clarify and simplify procedures in the Bill.
	Finally, amendment No. 37 would remove clause 57 from the Bill, and would prevent schedule 13 from taking effect. That would mean that the important consequential amendments in that schedule would not take effect, leaving enforcement agent law scattered across the statute book. It would do nothing to address the confusion and scope for abuse allowed by the law as a result of that scattering and of the differentiation between various pieces of legislation enacted at various times. I am sure that no one intends that, so I hope and predict that amendment No. 37 will not be pressed any further.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby spoke, in passing perhaps, about fees. I know that that was an important part of what worried him in the Adjournment debate. Because, as he would say, bailiffs make money out of enforcement, it is possible for them to carry on enforcing in order to make more money. Paragraph 62 to schedule 12 allows the Secretary of State, the Lord Chancellor, to make regulations about costs and fees. It is our intention to use that power to ensure that the fees are front-loaded so that there is much less incentive for an enforcement agent to carry on, as my hon. Friend put it, in order to make money. Enforcement agents will get an up-front payment to do the job. I hope that will give the right kind of incentive and a powerful signal that those people are not working on a partisan basis for creditors, but that they work also as agents of the state.
	I hope that what I have said across all these issues has reassured my hon. Friend and hon. Gentlemen, and that they now feel able to withdraw the proposals.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 11— Enforcement of Mobile Homes Act 1983—
	'(1) The Mobile Homes Act 1983 (c. 34) is amended as follows.
	(2) In sections 1(5), 2(2), 2(3), and 2(4), for "the court", substitute "the tribunal".
	(3) After section 3 insert—
	"3A The tribunal
	(1) The local authority for the district in which the protected site is situated must establish a tribunal to perform functions under this Act if the occupier or the owner so requests.
	(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations about tribunals under this Act.
	(3) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument.".
	(4) In section 4, and in the heading to that section, for "the court", substitute "the tribunal".
	(5) In section 5(1)—
	(a) omit the definition of "the court", and
	(b) at the appropriate place insert—
	""the tribunal" means—
	(a) in relation to England and Wales, the tribunal established under section 3A or, where the parties have agreed in writing to submit any question arising under this Act or, as the case may be, any agreement to which it applies to arbitration, the arbitrator;(b) in relation to Scotland, the sheriff having jurisdiction where the protected site is situated or, where the parties have so agreed, the arbiter.".
	(6) After section 6(4) insert—
	"(5) Section 3A extends to England and Wales only."'.
	Amendment No. 4, page 20, line 4, clause 22, at end insert—
	'(4A) The Tribunal Procedure Rules shall make provision for the granting by a judge of the First-tier Tribunal of legal aid for appropriate advice and representation in relation to any decision within the jurisdiction of the tribunal systems.'.
	Amendment No. 72, page 26, line 43, clause 31, at end insert—
	'(11) The Lord Chancellor may be regulations provide for the payment of pensions, allowances or gratuities by way of compensation to or in respect of such persons who suffer loss of office as a result of the abolition of a tribunal by virtue of this section as may be so specified or so determined.
	(12) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (11), regulations under this section may make provision—
	(a) as to the circumstances in which compensation is payable;
	(b) as to the amounts which are to be payable by way of compensation;
	(c) as to the manner in which and the person to whom any claim for compensation is to be made; and
	(d) for the determination of all questions arising under the regulations.'.
	Amendment No. 9, page 141, schedule 6, leave out lines 18 and 19.

Simon Hughes: New clause 3 and amendment No. 4 relate to legal aid and amendment No. 72 is on an entirely different matter, with which amendment No. 9, tabled by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) also deals, and that is the specific matter of the future of the general commissioners of the Revenue and their staff, which is a matter of concern on both sides of the House.
	New clause 3 contains the simple but hugely important proposal that the Lord Chancellor, the Minister of Justice, as he now is—or, as the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk commented, whoever he or his successor is soon to be—must by regulations make provision for legal aid for applicants for relief under clause 15.
	The Minister rightly brings to the House a Bill that sets up a new structure for our tribunals, and that is welcome. In that system there is the ability under clause 16 for the upper tribunal to have a judicial review jurisdiction. At the moment, there is provision for legal aid in some tribunals and on some occasions. We accept and believe that in general terms tribunals should not have lots of lawyers doing legally aided work, but there are exceptions when legal aid should be available because a matter is particularly significant, important or difficult. At the moment, that is possible by obtaining ministerial agreement, but we think that that is over-centralist, and that it should be possible for legal aid to be granted through arrangements made by the Minister of Justice in a much more routine and matter-of-fact way.
	Courts do important and significant work, but so do tribunals. We all know that, whether it is the social security tribunals dealing with people's benefits, whether it is the industrial tribunals dealing with people's employment rights, whether it is the race relations tribunals dealing with equality at work, or whether it is the asylum and immigration tribunals dealing with people's status, they can determine people's wealth, or their future in this country, and so on. We therefore believe that, exceptionally, there should be the ability to have legal aid in those places. New clause 3 would allow that, and we hope that the House will agree to it. Amendment No. 4 is a complementary proposal and I hope that it will commend itself to the House.
	The last matter is a ring-fenced one that is of concern to only a small number of people, but it is important enough to deal with here, a view shared by Conservative Members. The clerks to the commissioners who have looked after adjudications on tax matters are remunerated by the Ministry of Justice on a salaried basis. They are dealt with by tax management legislation. The clerks to the general commissioners for taxes may work in a profession that is not terribly popular, but they do an extremely good, competent and valuable job.
	Earlier in the year, the treasurer and secretary of the Association of Clerks to the General Commissioners of Taxes wrote to Members of Parliament expressing a concern that because the general commissioners of income tax are currently a tribunal dealing with income tax and corporation tax matters, as they have been for 210 years, but are to be abolished and disappear with the general tribunal system, they need to be looked after as a group of people who will have no automatic continuing career. The role of the clerk will effectively disappear completely when the Bill becomes law and is implemented.
	There are 244 clerks—or there were when we were first approached—mostly part time, and many are retired professionals from other walks of life, business, the law or the Revenue, employed by the general commissioners of tax, paid for by the Ministry of Justice. There is no compensation for loss of office for these people. Therefore we tabled amendment No. 72 to allow the Lord Chancellor, by regulations, to
	"provide for the payment of pensions, allowances or gratuities by way of compensation to or in respect of such persons who suffer loss of office as a result of the abolition of a tribunal by virtue of this section".
	It gives a general permissive power which we hope would allow the Lord Chancellor to treat these people justly when their jobs end.
	I had hoped, as the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk and others had, that by now this matter would have been resolved amicably. I know that these people and their representatives went to see Ministers and have had many communications. I had a letter—colleagues will have received a similar letter—from Baroness Ashton of Upholland, the Under-Secretary of State who looked after the Bill in the other place, dated 24 April. She tells me that she has carefully considered the issues and merits of including a provision for compensation, but that on balance she does not believe that the Bill should be amended to allow for that, because—I summarise for the sake of brevity—the legal advice is that these people are fee-paid office holders, which is a status creating no expectation in law of compensation. That was the confirmed ministerial view in April. Since then, even as recently as in the last week, there has been a further meeting with Ministers, but as I understand it, there is still no resolution that is satisfactory to the clerks.
	This is a plea that those people, who have been public servants in the most important of jobs, done hugely professionally, should not be left out in the cold as a by-product of the legislation. I hope that at this last hour we can persuade Ministers either to accept amendment No. 72 or amendment No. 9.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Jenny Willott) represents a city where a large number of people are employed by the Revenue and look after Revenue matters for Member of Parliament. I think that all Members' tax matters are dealt with in Cardiff, so my hon. Friend has a particular constituency interest, and we also have a general interest. These are people who have served us specifically and the country at large, and I hope that we can look after them, at their request, and treat them decently.

Richard Benyon: New clause 11 refers to park homes, the legislation behind which can be found in the Mobile Homes Act 1983, as amended. The Government were genuine in the amendments they made to park homes legislation in the Housing Act 2004. I am the first to admit that the new clause is very broad in its attempt to resolve a serious problem and I hope the Minister can help me in finding the best way forward.
	I have 11 park home sites in my constituency, the largest of which has over 150 units. Bizarrely, these are not dwellings under the law, but chattels. They have many of the rights of properties, but they cannot be considered as such under the law. Most park home sites are well managed and I am a great supporter of this type of living, which affords the occupants an excellent life choice; an affordable home and a way of maintaining savings while living in a social environment.
	All is not well in park homes across the country, however. This week I attended a meeting of the all-party group on mobile homes, chaired by the excellent hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner). We heard from the National Association of Park Home Residents that despite all the recent legislation and genuine attempts from both sides of the House to address the problems, dwellers in mobile homes are worse off than ever.
	Under the provisions of the Housing Act 2004, unscrupulous site owners have been free to charge huge additional sums for the extra administration caused by legislation. Under the new legislation, park home owners may require the site owner to give notice of 14 days before entering their buildings. Site owners are now asking residents to put electricity meters outside their homes and to pay for that. All these costs resulting from legislation, along with changes to the RPI and other matters, are piling pressure on to some of the most financially challenged people in our communities.
	The majority of park home sites are well managed. Residents get on well with the site owner and they can enjoy their lives. But in too many sites, unscrupulous owners behave in a way that sometimes defies belief. I have used terms like "Dickensian" and "robber baron" perhaps too freely, to the point where I am exaggerating a little, but there is great misery and concern.
	The clause concerns the resolving of disputes. One problem area is the sale of properties. Let us say that an elderly park home owner has to move into residential care and puts her home on the market. Under the terms of legislation and her agreement, she can sell to anyone, but the site owner has to agree that that person can take over. He cannot take an unreasonable attitude to the new purchaser and has 28 days to approve. However, he can comply with the legislation precisely by saying, "I am delighted that you have bought this park home and that you will be living on my site. I think you should know that I'm going to make your life hell. I am going to try to increase pitch fees to the maximum, put more units on the site and not resurface the roads." Pretty soon, the purchaser realises that this is not where they want to spend the more leisurely years of their life and pulls out of the deal. After that has happened two or three times, the vendor is so desperate that she agrees to sell at a knock-down price to the park site owner. To add insult to injury, he then takes 10 per cent. of the sale fee.
	I am seeking to allow park home owners to raise such horrendous matters in a more appropriate form of tribunal than currently exists. It takes great courage for individuals to follow due process, be it through the courts or a tribunal, to achieve redress. There is the added problem that local authorities, who have huge responsibilities for park homes sites, are not exercising their full powers. I am not blaming my local authority; it is reasonably assiduous. But there are many stories of local authorities not exercising their powers within licensing agreements to improve the quality of life for park home dwellers.
	I want to raise the issue of park home owners who wish to have a residents' association. On well-run sites, enlightened site owners welcome residents' associations. It can be a mutually beneficial experience, as the site owner can have a direct link, through one group of people, to all the park home owners. Conversely, people feel that they have a conduit for their concerns on a regulated basis through an organisation with a constitution.
	The unscrupulous site owner finds such associations a threat, however. In one site in my constituency, the owner has written to residents to set out his reasons why he does not want a residents' association on the site. He said in his letter that those who are pushing for an association have a "hidden agenda" and that such schemes often cause ill-feeling between residents and park owners. He is really saying that he does not want the residents of that park home to be empowered, as they are entitled to be under the law, to represent their concerns in a properly constituted body.
	The standard trick by the unscrupulous site owner is to divide and rule. I have witnessed many cases where the owner has asked people to withdraw their names from petitions calling for a residents' association, with the proposed association then falling. There have been even worse cases where owners have passed out private information about the circumstances of individuals who are trying to set up residents' associations.
	What options exist for an aggrieved park home dweller to resolve a dispute? Really, the only option is the county court, which is a laborious and expensive process. By and large, the people concerned have reached the stage of their lives where they do not want or need the hassle of going to a county court to resolve a dispute. There must be a better way of doing it. I have discovered that local authorities can, if they wish, set up tribunals to carry out their functions in settling disputes or dealing with local authority matters. Basically, local authorities can do what they like when exercising their own powers, but they may not set up a tribunal to deal with something that is out of their jurisdiction. They can, for example, deal with licensing measures, but they cannot act when residents are trying to set up a residents association but are unable to do so. That is the problem that I seek to resolve through the new clause. In some circumstances, it is in people's interests to go to the county court, because if they get a bad judgment they can at least appeal. That route remains attractive in dealing with several kinds of disputes, but for a great many people the county court remains a daunting prospect, to the point where they are not prepared to go down that path.
	I hope that the way in which the Mobile Homes Act 1983 was amended by statutory instrument last year may offer a way forward. If the Minister is willing to meet me, and perhaps members of interested bodies on both sides, to discuss that option, I will be prepared to consider withdrawing the new clause to find a better method of resolving the situation. In any event, I hope that she will take from this debate the serious concerns that exist among thousands of people, many of whom have reached a point in their lives where they simply do not want the overbearing responsibility, difficulty, expense and process of going to a county court when there must be a better and more local tribunal system that can deal with their concerns.

Vera Baird: Those who are eligible for legal aid for a judicial review in the High Court will not be put at a disadvantage if the case is transferred to the upper tribunal. We will therefore extend the scope of legal aid so that they get legal aid. I hope that that answer is satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman. An amendment is not required.
	On new clause 11, I congratulate and compliment the hon. Member for Newbury on taking the opportunity to draw public attention to such issues. I, too, think that to live in an affordable park home sounds like quite an agreeable lifestyle choice. The stories that we have heard about blackmail, bullying and people behaving badly and abusing their power are appalling. I am sorry that that goes on. I hope that I can bring forward a positive suggestion in relation to his constituents' difficulties with the fact that the only place for the resolution of disputes is the county court.
	The hon. Gentleman has 11 mobile home sites within his constituency—I think that I have two—and he is an active member of the all-party group on the welfare of park home owners. He probably also knows that the Department for Communities and Local Government is working closely with representatives of both site providers and residents to try to develop proposals for alternative forms of resolution. If he did not know that, let me make clear that that is going on, and if wishes to get involved on behalf of the 11 mobile home sites in his constituency, I shall make sure that he has sufficient information.
	Alternative ways of resolution other than the courts are being considered. Currently, disputes go to the county court under the mobile homes legislation. I understand that negotiations have thrown up some issues that both sides of the park home sector agree should remain in the county court. If that is so, those issues will no doubt stay in the county court. For the benefit of the hon. Gentleman's constituents, let me say that the county court has a small claims track, which is likely to be a route that can be taken by people in some of the predicaments that he has described. Its procedures are very much simplified, and the district judges who operate that track are proactive and immensely helpful to those who are unrepresented and not well versed in matters of law.
	Many county courts also increasingly have mediation officers, to whom district judges can send cases that they think are appropriate for mediation. It sounds possible that some of the issues raised would be appropriate for mediation. Whether or not that is the case, if it is agreed at the end of negotiations that some issues should remain in the county court, that should not put off constituents who have a real cause for complaint, because the small claims track is not a fully bewigged, begowned, formal, "my learned friend" sort of experience. It is much more informal than that.
	Once there is overall agreement on the best routes for dispute resolution, the Government can, and will be happy to, use the provisions in the Housing Act 2004 to transfer those disputes that it is agreed should be transferred to a tribunal setting. The tribunal will be the residential property tribunal service, which is an existing national tribunal service that already deals with issues such as rent and leasehold, so should be well versed in the kind of territory over which some of the disputes arise. Transfer can be achieved by an affirmative statutory instrument under the 2004 Act, making the amendment unnecessary. Of course, if that process is used there will be a debate to allowing scrutiny of the proposed transfer.
	The hon. Gentleman did not intend his amendment to be perfection incarnate, and it would be very expensive to set up individual tribunals for each of the 269 local authorities that have park homes, so the proposition I have described is much better. I hope that I have set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest and that he will participate, on behalf of his constituents, in the discussions that are going on, so that in due course park home owners can have ready access to recourse when they are treated in the appalling way that he described.
	I turn now to the general commissioners for income tax. I should make it clear that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), will have responsibility for tribunals—at least for another couple of hours— and that is why he has discussed the issue with the commissioners. Amendment No. 9, tabled by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk, would remove the reference to the general commissioners, while amendment No. 72 would enable compensation to be paid for loss of office as a result of this Bill.
	The primary concern of both amendments is the question of compensation to clerks following the abolition of their office. I was impressed by the impassioned plea for the retention of the status quo made by the hon. Gentleman, but I believe that he generally supports the streamlining process in this Bill. It is a thin case to suggest that the issue of compensation means that the tax commissioners should be left out entirely.

Vera Baird: My hon. Friend makes a good point about the potential cost of appeals if the persons hearing the cases in the first instance are less expert. That is a truism across the board.
	I acknowledge the statement by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk that his amendment is concerned with the structure. We are confident that tax appeal modernisation is an important part of the tribunal reforms. We intend such appeals to fall within the new tribunal system.
	The Liberal Democrat amendment is about compensation. My hon. Friend the Under Secretary met with the clerks yesterday to listen to their arguments. It has been the view of the Government that no compensation is appropriate, and nothing was put forward in those discussions that changed the Government's mind on the matter. The clerks are not salaried, as the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey suggested: they are fee-paid office holders —[ Interruption. ] I must have misheard the hon. Gentleman. There is no expectation attached to that status of compensation if the office is abolished.
	Clerks handle their workload in their own way: they are not directed by the Department. Some clerks do a lot of work and either manages that work alongside being a practicing solicitor or as their sole activity. But most clerks earn very little. The average remuneration is under £5,000. Only 10 out of 356 divisions generate more than £20,000 in fees for the clerk. The exact breakdown of that fee will vary from clerk to clerk, but a fee of £20,000 equates to approximately 60 hours of hearing time a year. For the vast majority, our reforms represent not a loss of their livelihood, but merely the loss of one source of income for their firm.
	Reform of the tax appeals system has been on the agenda for many years. The clerks have known for two years that the present system was likely to be abolished. It will not be abolished until April 2009 and they have had, and continue to have, ample time to look for alternative sources of income. Firms have to do this all the time, of course.
	Furthermore and importantly, appeal numbers have been declining since self-assessment for income tax was introduced. It is unreasonable to suggest that there can be a legitimate expectation that the present level of income from that work would have continued had the system not been abolished. The existing compensation scheme is in the context of a continuing general commissioner system and not its abolition. If the system were continuing and there were to be a merger of divisions and a choice had to be made as to which of a number of clerks would be clerk of the merged division, it would be reasonable to compensate those who lost the opportunity to carry on. But where the whole system is to be abolished it would be an inappropriate use of public money to compensate all those individuals who happen to be earning fees from the scheme at the time. We have looked carefully at the examples of compensation schemes cited by the clerks in support of their case, but we are advised that none of them constitutes a legal precedent. Nor is there any breach of the Human Rights Act, although no one has today suggested that that is the case.
	The Government have already agreed to top up fees if the workload in the final year is higher than the preceding year. It now looks likely that the nature of the work in the last year will require some additional duties of the clerks, to assist in transition from old to new system. My officials are considering the details of a final-year scheme that will take full account of those additional duties and ensure that clerks are fully and properly remunerated for all that they do up to the end of the scheme.
	The Government cannot accept an amendment that would set back our plans for tax appeal modernisation, which is what the Conservatives' amendment would do. We also remain unconvinced by the arguments put in favour of compensation.
	I hope my few words about looking at the final year will have cheered the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) a little. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice has said that he hopes to recover the good will of the clerks, but we remain unconvinced about the amendment and cannot accept them.

Simon Hughes: If you will allow me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall start my response by saying that we began the debate under one regime, and will finish under a new Prime Minister. On behalf of all those in the House when he was elected, and of everyone else, I extend our congratulations and best wishes to him and his family. I am sure that we will support everything that he does in the national interest. The Minister and I are of the same generation as the new Prime Minister, and so have a particular cause for rejoicing.
	With his new clause 11, the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon) rightfully put on record an important and significant matter of concern. The Minister was not able to accede to his request, but I hope that the fact that his argument was heard will mean that the people who live in park homes around the country get a better response to their concerns in future.
	The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) and I then sought to persuade the Minister about the general commissioners of taxes and their clerks. I meant to say that they were fee earners and not salaried, but stand corrected if I did not. I incorrectly said that Lisvane, where our taxes are processed, was in Cardiff rather than Llanishen, but the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk rightly said that general commissioners and their clerks meet and serve locally. Unlike the Revenue as a whole, therefore, they offer very much a local face and presence. The hon. Gentleman said that he had never appeared before the commissioners: I have, at a hearing in London, and found them very courteous and helpful.
	I met the Under-Secretary yesterday. He is currently responsible for these matters, but I have not yet had the full feedback from the meeting. I hear what the Minister has said today and, although we still want to support the commissioners and clerks, we will defer to the Conservative amendment that I understand will be moved later.
	I am grateful to the Minister for accepting exactly our proposals on legal aid in new clause 3. Amendment No. 4 also deals with legal aid, and we still believe that having a more express permission for the granting of legal aid in the Bill would be of benefit. When the time comes, we will put that amendment to the will of the House. I shall ask to withdraw new clause 3, then move new clause 4 formally. I know that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) wants to press new clause 6 to a Division, and then we shall do the same for amendment No. 4.
	I beg to ask leave to withdraw new clause 3.
	 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
	No. 68, page 44, line 36 [Clause 59], at end insert—
	'(h) requiring enforcement agents to work subject to a published contract when enforcing court fines, council tax and non-domestic rate arrears and road traffic debts.'.
	No. 8, page 53 [Clause 84], leave out lines 13 to 15.
	No. 11, page 205, line 27 [Schedule 12], at end insert—
	'(5) In exercising any of their powers or duties under this procedure enforcement agents and any persons authorised to act on their behalf shall act in accordance with National Standards and any guidance issued by the Lord Chancellor.'.
	No. 1, page 206, line 16, after 'means', insert—
	'(a) '.
	No. 2, page 206, line 17, at end insert—
	'(b) such tools, books, vehicles and other items of equipment as are necessary to the debtor for use personally by him in his employment, business or vocation;
	(c) such clothing, bedding, furniture, household equipment and provisions as are necessary for satisfying the basic domestic needs of the debtor and his family;
	(d) money where an enforcement agent has reasonable cause to believe that this would be necessary for the immediate domestic needs of the debtor and his family;
	(e) domestic pets;'.
	No. 19, page 206, line 17, at end insert—
	'(b) goods that fall within paragraph 4A(1);'.
	No. 13, page 206, line 31, at end insert—
	 'Code of conduct
	3A (1) The Secretary of State shall issue a code of conduct to ensure that the poor, vulnerable and socially excluded are protected from disproportionate enforcement.
	(2) Enforcement agents, courts, creditors and others with responsibility for an enforcement action shall comply with the code of conduct.'.
	No. 41, page 206, line 31, at end insert—
	 'Protection from disproportionate enforcement action
	3A The Secretary of State shall issue guidance to ensure that the poor, vulnerable and socially excluded people are protected from disproportionate enforcement action.'.
	No. 12, page 207, line 3, at end insert—
	'4A (1) The following fall into the definition of exempt goods so as to preclude seizure of—
	(a) any goods which are fixtures or fittings attached to the premises including goods which are plumbed in or connected to water, fuel or power supplies,
	(b) domestic animals and animals kept as pets,
	(c) guard dogs,
	(d) any dog on which a blind person relies,
	(e) any animal which is kept for commercial gain, save as allowed through common law and where provision for the welfare of the animal has been arranged in advance,
	(f) in the case of domestic dwellings no sum of money of £500 in cash or below,
	(g) in the case of domestic dwellings no sum of money which would leave the debtor with less than £500.
	(2) In the case of domestic dwellings no sum of money above £500 is to be removed without the civil enforcement officer recording the purpose for which the money is to be used.'.
	No. 3, page 207, line 42, at end insert—
	 'Rights and remedies information
	6A (1) Her Majesty's Court Service shall prepare an information sheet to inform debtors of the rights and remedies available to them with respect to an enforcement power.
	(2) Regulations must make provision for the information to be included in an information sheet to include—
	(a) powers of entry and re-entry;
	(b) limits and controls on the power to use reasonable force;
	(c) exempt goods;
	(d) ways of taking control of goods;
	(e) permitted costs and charges;
	(f) rights to redress;
	(g) how to complain;
	(h) how to ask for time to pay;
	(i) where to go for advice and assistance.
	(3) Regulations must make provision for the form, ordering and prominence of information.
	(4) The Lord Chancellor shall consult such persons and bodies he considers appropriate on the content of regulations under this paragraph.'.
	No. 25, page 208, line 2, at end insert—
	'and has signed a form to indicate that the notice has been received'.
	No. 69, page 208, line 2, at end insert—
	'by recorded delivery mail and, in the event of any failure of delivery, by personal visit by the enforcement agent, acknowledged by the signature of the debtor.'.
	No. 36, page 208, line 28, at end insert—
	'and only if they are not money, clothing, bedding, furniture, household equipment and provisions as are necessary for satisfying the basic domestic needs of the debtor and his or her family or such tools or other items of equipment as are necessary for the debtor to continue in his business, employment, vocation or education.
	(2) Regulations may clarify, limit or expand the exemptions in subparagraph (1), including but not limited to placing an upper monetary limit on the value of a protected item where necessary.'.
	No. 26, page 209, leave out line 6.
	No. 38, page 209, line 14, leave out paragraph 13.
	No. 27, page 209, line 21, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
	No. 20, page 209, line 29, at end insert 'or other competent person'.
	No. 16, page 209, line 34, at end insert—
	'(5) In this paragraph a "competent person" is any person either residing at the relevant premises or working at the relevant premises where these are premises where the debtor carries out trade or business at the time when control is taken, who—
	(a) is 18 years of age or over; and
	(b) fully understands the consequences of the procedure being carried out.'.
	No. 15, page 209, line 34, at end insert—
	 'Premises occupied by a single woman or persons under 16
	13A Where a dwelling is known or believed to be occupied by a single woman or a child under 16, no visit with the intention of seizing goods shall be permitted unless the enforcement officer is female or is accompanied by a female enforcement officer.'.
	No. 28, page 213, line 2, at end insert—
	'and after notice has been given to the owner of any vehicle in relation to which the power is to be exercised'.
	No. 70, page 213, line 2, at end insert—
	'(1A) There shall be no enforcement action until notice has been served by recorded delivery mail, and in the event of any failure of delivery, by personal visit by the enforcement agent, acknowledged by the signature of the debtor.'.
	No. 29, page 213, line 7, at end insert—
	', before doing either of those things,'.
	No. 30, page 213, line 12, leave out sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) and insert—
	'(3) The enforcement agent must deliver the notice to any relevant premises in a sealed envelope addressed to the debtor.
	(4) Premises are relevant if the enforcement agent reasonably believes that they are the place, or one of the places, where the debtor—
	(a) usually lives, or
	(b) carries on a trade or business.'.
	No. 31, page 213, line 37, leave out 'Before the end of the minimum period' and insert—
	'If a vehicle is clamped or removed under the provisions of this Schedule'.
	No. 32, page 214, line 1, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
	No. 40, page 217, line 24, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
	No. 7, page 221, line 28, at end insert—
	'(4A) Regulations must make provision for legal aid to be available where financially necessary in all such actions.'.
	Government amendment No. 64.
	Government amendment No. 65.

Henry Bellingham: The amendments relate to enforcement by taking control of goods, and the relevant procedure. I shall say a word about the amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friends. Amendment No. 10 is about protection for vulnerable people. Amendment No. 11 makes it clear that enforcement agents must act in accordance with national standards. Amendment No. 19 is about exempt goods. Amendment No. 13 is about a code of conduct to protect the vulnerable, and is closely related to amendment No. 10. Amendment No. 12 deals with the tools of trade. Amendment No. 3, which is about rights and remedies information, was tabled by the Liberal Democrats but we have signed it. Amendments Nos. 16 and 20 are about the competent persons test. Amendment No. 15 is about protection for the under-16s.
	We have heard today about vulnerable groups and the pressure that they may come under. Although the vast majority of bailiffs act correctly and properly and do an excellent job, there are those who do not do such a good job and who abuse their power. We have already debated whether it would appropriate to bring in tougher regulation for those who do abuse their power, but too many cases have come to our attention of bailiffs turning up on the doorsteps of vulnerable people.
	I want to refer to one or two cases that should never have happened. A case in 2001 involved a man from Southwark suffering from serious learning difficulties, who might well have been a constituent of the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), and the local council outsourced the collection of the debt to a private bailiff. This man had a council house debt of £235.10, plus the costs of a hearing, and he received a summons, parts of which were highlighted and in bold type. Many such summonses are despatched every day. It said:
	"If a liability order is granted the Council will be able to take one or more of the following actions: instruct bailiffs to take your goods to settle your debt...you will be liable to pay the bailiffs' costs...instruct your employer to deduct payments...deduct money...make you bankrupt, or make a charging order against your home, or have you committed to prison."
	That person had no support or help whatever and he ended up committing suicide.
	Other cases involve people who were in desperate plight. A case reported to us by the citizens advice bureau in Lincolnshire involved a tenant who had vacated premises without notice and owing rent. The client did not know where the tenant had gone and was unaware that he had not paid his TV licence. One day when the client was at the premises, two bailiffs arrived to collect the sum due. The client explained who he was, and eventually the bailiffs believed him. However, they said that they had not come all that way to leave with nothing, and insisted that the client pay the fine instead. The client again said that he was not liable, but the bailiffs said that if he did not pay the fine in cash immediately, they would telephone for a lorry, break into his premises and take goods to the value of the fine. When the client explained that he did not have sufficient cash on him, the bailiffs insisted on accompanying him to the bank to withdraw the money. When the client phoned the magistrates court, he was told to take his complaint to the local CAB. The client told the CAB that he felt so intimidated and frightened that he had no choice but to pay the fine, and went to the bank with one of the bailiffs.
	I gave an example earlier of a tragic case involving a woman from Manchester who was visited by bailiffs in respect of a debt owed by her daughter, who did not live with her. The bailiffs told her that she was responsible for her daughter's debt and that they were permitted to move goods from the property, which of course was wrong.
	I also gave an example earlier of a CAB client in Bedfordshire whose husband had died, but the next day the bailiffs called at her house. She explained that her husband had died, that there were real problems in the family and that he had not made his will, but they insisted on going ahead with enforcement action.
	The Minister said in Committee, and she alluded to it again this afternoon, that various measures will be in place to help vulnerable people. She referred specifically to the national standards for enforcement agents, which make clear those who are potentially vulnerable, including the elderly, people with a disability, the seriously ill, the recently bereaved, single parent families and pregnant women. When the Minister replies, I hope that she will be able to make clear whether those national standards are being properly adhered to.
	The Reverend Paul Nicholson of the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust has done a huge amount of work in helping the vulnerable over many years and has become an expert in bailiff procedure and enforcement procedure. He has been assiduous in briefing the Committee and hon. Members and I applaud him for his work. When the Minister wrote to him, she made it clear:
	"We remain of the opinion that the best way to tackle the problems that enforcement agents may face when identifying or being confronted by so-called potentially vulnerable debtor groups or situations is through the training they will have to undergo and through the enhanced and extended certification process."
	Is she going to honour that pledge? Will the existing national guidelines be adhered to? I hope that they will. The Bill will give bailiffs substantially more power. I am concerned by the use of complicated language in schedule 12, and Philip Evans, national chair of the Certified Bailiffs Association, made it clear in a letter to members of the committee that he felt that the language used in the schedule was "gobbledegook." He was concerned that, over many years, the Government had not enforced the national standards and made sure that they were adhered to properly. We will have a system of regulation for private bailiffs, but it will not cover Crown agents. There will be a new certification process for them and the Minister says there will be remedies for people who have complaints. The Government have a huge vested interest in making sure that the money is collected—in many ways we respect and accept that—but there will be a great deal of pressure on bailiffs, who, we must bear in mind, will have increased powers.
	I am concerned by the new forced entry powers, which, to be fair, do not flow from the Bill; they were brought in by the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. This extra amendment to that Bill was tabled at the last moment and overturns many hundreds of years of common law.
	Bailiffs now have far more power as a result of the 2004 Act and will receive additional powers under the Bill. In Committee, I quoted the argument about the Englishman's home being his castle, which dates back to the 14th century Semayne case. The case was commented on by William Pitt the elder, the first Earl of Chatham, in a classic quote that sums up this part of common law. In the 1960s case Southam  v Smout, Lord Denning cited William Pitt the Elder's famous saying:
	"The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storms may enter; the rain may enter—but the King of England cannot enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement".
	That sums up the situation that was prevalent in common law until the Government changed it.
	The Bill gives bailiffs yet more powers, including more powers of entry, and vulnerable people may suffer as a consequence. We do not want that to happen and it would be easy to add extra safeguards, which is what the amendment proposes. Why should not the tools of the trade be exempt in the Bill? Many of those who run into debt will be self-employed small business people. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) mentioned a constituency case in which a firm had run into debt and the bailiffs came round and removed what might have been vital equipment.
	I would like the Minister to comment on two additional points. First, there has of late been a lot of discussion as to whether, once the bailiffs have been unleashed, for example by a central payment office, to go to visit a debtor and to raise the money, if the debtor then wants to go back to the magistrates court to request a hearing for a review of a disproportionate fine, the magistrates court can withdraw the bailiffs after the request to enter. The Minister wrote to Rev. Paul Nicholson saying that in her view the magistrates court does have the power to order the bailiffs to be called off so that the case for review can take place. On the other hand, I have seen an opinion by leading counsel, in reference to a particular case, making it clear that it does not have the power to withdraw the bailiffs. In fact, the clerks to the magistrates court in Her Majesty's Courts Service central payments office in Buckinghamshire say that they do not have that power. They cited—it was also cited by leading counsel—the case of R  v. Hereford and Worcester Magistrates Court, ex parte MacRae, 1998, 163 JP 433. The Minister needs to clarify this because it is very important in terms of how the vulnerable are treated once they get seriously into debt and run into major problems. If Rev. Paul Nicholson and leading counsel are saying one thing and the Minister and her civil servants are saying something else, that is a pretty unfair and rum situation.
	Secondly, I should like to touch on the point relating to judicial review. As we know, judicial review is used to control illegal or unlawful decisions—decisions which break the law or which a body or organisation has no power to make. For example, there could be procedural impropriety, or a situation where unfair decisions are made, or the decision maker is biased, or unreasonable decisions take place where the bodies in question have discretion but do not use it. In 1948, a well known case—Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation—laid down the Wednesbury rules, which refer to all cases of judicial review. When it comes to Crown bailiffs—the Government-employed bailiffs—who act on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, public bodies and local authorities, there is no proper system of judicial review, which means that the actions of these Government employees and Crown servants cannot be properly held to account in the courts. That concerned us a great deal in Committee, where we had a substantial debate about it. That strengthens the case for amendment No. 10, which would lay down in the Bill a proper code to help the vulnerable.
	Earlier, the Minister said that schedule 12 lays down the appropriate remedies and protection. She mentioned the use of reasonable force, methods of address and the procedures relating to the sale of goods. We accept a great deal of that, but it does not go far enough. We feel very strongly at a time when the Government are giving bailiffs more power, when more and more people are falling into debt, and when, sadly but inevitably as more debts are enforced and more private bailiffs are employed, that there will be abuses of the system. The Bill's consequences will be felt in places, and we are grateful for that. For example, the Security Industry Authority will regulate private bailiffs.
	Not only the small minority of private bailiffs abuse power, however. Government bailiffs also do that from time to time. There are far too many cases of vulnerable people who are at their wits' end suffering persecution, strain and stress that none of us would wish on anyone. We get such cases in our surgeries and advice centres and we read about them. They are unfortunately a fact of life. The Bill will help to reduce such cases; but granting more power, not putting in place a proper system of judicial review, and relying exclusively on schedule 12 and its remedies are not enough.
	I therefore urge the Under-Secretary to consider the amendment, which would provide for issuing national standards and guidance that required enforcement agencies not to act oppressively or disproportionately. If she accepts it, I shall not press amendments about the tools of the trade, the code of conduct, the rights and remedies information sheet, the competentpersons test and protection for the under-16s. Amendment No. 10 goes to the core of what we are trying to achieve.
	We have grave concerns about the Bill, but it will do a substantial amount of good through the unified tribunal system, the provisions on looted art and the measures to update the enforcement system. However, if we go ahead without the amendment, we will unleash on the public a system that will not give them a fair deal.

Simon Hughes: There may be time yet.
	This group of amendments was introduced by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham). Were he to seek to divide the House on his lead amendment, my hon. Friends and I would support him. As he rightly says, the purpose of this group is to ensure that standards apply in all places and at all times to prevent the vulnerable from being adversely affected by bailiffs and people coming to their homes and taking their property.
	Amendment No. 10 is a permissive amendment, which would require national standards and guidance, thus providing a gold standard. That would be a welcome initiative. In this large group of amendments, the majority of which were tabled by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), the Liberal Democrats have tabled amendments Nos. 8, 1, 2, 3 and 7.
	Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are a return to the proposal that we should be more specific in the Bill about what constitute exempt goods. I remember the debate, and the Minister's summary response was that we need flexibility. The lack of specificity in the Bill would be covered if there were general guidance and national standards, and amendment No. 10 would cover the criticism of amendments Nos. 1 and 2. Amendment No. 8 has been discussed, but it is an anomaly in this day and age that clause 84 should state:
	"This part binds the Crown"—
	and then continues:
	"But the procedure in Schedule 12 may not be used...to recover debts due from the Crown...to take control of or sell goods of the Crown...or...to enter premises occupied by the Crown."
	I understand that there would be great embarrassment, for instance, if the bailiffs could go into Buckingham palace, especially this afternoon at the same time as other people. That would clearly be inappropriate. However, we discovered in Committee that that provision also referred to Crown agencies—all of those acting under the authority of the Crown. We believe that there should be no exemption. Some years ago we changed the rules to reduce the exemptions that apply in general to the Crown and they should be reduced here too.
	We have argued that clear information should be given to individuals about their rights, and our amendment No. 3 is similar to those tabled by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby. It would require that Her Majesty's court service prepare an information sheet, to be made generally available and that reflects the rules and tells debtors of the rights and remedies available to them. That is the same point as that made by the hon. Gentleman. At the moment, the law is confusing. If we went down the Old Kent road in my constituency and asked people when they thought they had a duty to let someone who was chasing them for money into their house, we would get all sorts of different answers, because the law is not generally known or understood. People do not know when they are obliged to let people in. Many people would say that a home in England is a castle and that we must be allowed to keep people out. It is indeed the case that in many cases people do not have to let others into their house, even if they come with some rights over property, because there are processes that have to be gone through. It is important to make that clear.
	The document should cover the powers of entry; the powers of re-entry; when reasonable force can be used; when force can be used; exempt goods; how goods can be secured; how goods can be taken away; what can be charged, because goods can be removed and retained, while the costs tick up like a meter and the owners cannot recover them; what remedy is available if goods are collected wrongly; how one can complain; how can one ask for time to pay; and where one should go for advice and assistance. That information is important.
	Amendment No. 7 proposes that the debtor, when seeking to enforce rights against those who come to seize their goods, should have legal aid. There should be an ability to challenge the authority, whether it is the state, local government or the private sector.
	Our amendments are about giving the citizen the power to know the law and their rights, and ensuring that people in positions of authority—especially those with a financial hold over them—cannot abuse that position. We need a new regime and the amendments would help towards that end. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to them.

Brooks Newmark: I am delighted to be able to return to this important if somewhat heterogeneous Bill, although I very much doubt that our deliberations will be among the top one or two stories on the news tonight. The Minister may look doubtful about that, but it is a shame because the Bill will have a considerable impact on those of our constituents unfortunate enough to find themselves in financial difficulty.
	If anything is more stressful than moving house, it is probably the thought that someone may enter it to remove treasured possessions. The Opposition have been consistent in our appeals for a code of conduct that is transparent and accessible to members of the public, and on which they can rely when they are in difficulty with bailiffs. The poor, vulnerable and socially excluded are at particular risk, but a code of conduct or set of notional standards would bring universal benefits.
	The slightly tenuous argument was advanced in Committee that bailiffs already have their own code of conduct, and that a Government code would be to no avail in dealing with the few bailiffs who have decided to ignore their own. However, national standards or a code of conduct set by the Government would ensure consistency and hold up a mirror to the whole enforcement profession, and that could not but be to the advantage of the public as a whole.
	If that is not sufficient, proposed new paragraph (2) of amendment No. 13 makes it explicit that the code would not be a matter of whimsy, but that people would be expected to adhere to it. We are all aware of the sterling work of the citizens advice bureaux in assisting people who get into debt. Staff at the office covering Braintree, Witham and Halstead have written to me with their general concerns about the Bill, and specific examples of problems that they have encountered recently.
	In one example, a client was being chased for a debt even though she thought that she was up to date with it. Indeed, it turned out that the debt was nearly 10 years old. That was unfortunate in itself, but her real concern was that the bailiff involved was demanding entry to her house and would not accept any payment terms whatsoever. The CAB client had offered to pay the debt over a period of six months, but the bailiff said that he could only accept three monthly instalments.
	I know that such problems are all too common, and that is why I continue to believe that the Bill is missing an opportunity to set out, clearly and accessibly, the behaviour expected from bailiffs when dealing with the poor, vulnerable or socially excluded. Society and Government have a special responsibility to those people—an implicit responsibility that ought to be made explicit.
	Requiring bailiffs to act proportionately would also be an attempt to legislate for common sense. The Minister has that quality in abundance, but unfortunately it is sometimes lacking in bailiffs, who can clock up hundreds of pounds of costs in order to get their hands on pennies.
	The Minister places her trust in training as part of the beefed-up certification process, but training can still fall short of the mark, even when those participating in it have the best of intentions. In addition, the certification process will almost certainly be opaque to public scrutiny, whereas a code of conduct and minimum standards would be clearly understood by the enforcement profession and, more importantly, the public.
	In Committee, there was some question over the secrecy of the bailiffs bible. The Minister keeps it under lock and key in her office because it concerns operations issues which, in her opinion, should not be made public. That is indicative of one of the problems with the Bill. There is a suspicion, or even just a perception, that a lot is going on behind closed doors in terms of available guidance, standards and training.
	A code of conduct or recognisable national standards would go a long way towards dispelling that perception. The Minister has been kind enough to acknowledge that the predecessors to these amendments were all well intentioned, but suggested that they were unnecessary because the conduct of bailiffs would be well enough regulated by appropriate regulations. However, she hit the nail on the head when she said that she did not expect a debtor to read them and that there was no chance of that happening, but more chance that they might lead to national standards or a code of conduct that is clearly in the public domain. She has been steadfast in her position on that line of argument, but I hope that she will reconsider the position today.
	I also wish to speak in support of amendment No. 12 on the need to provide in the Bill a list of items exempted from possessions that enforcement officers are able to remove. I do not in any way suggest that it is a full list. As we discussed in Committee, regardless of whether it is even possible to provide a full list, it is also inexpedient to do so because such a list would need to evolve over time. Nevertheless, a core list in the Bill and further exemptions spelled out by regulations are not mutually exclusive. If I am incorrect in that assumption, I hope that the Minister will correct me in her usual gracious way. My concern is that parts of the Bill are so skeletal that it is remarkable that they have not been seized upon by Damien Hirst as a candidate for diamond-plating.
	I am grateful for the Ministry's detailed policy statement on delegated powers, but the fact that it reaches 65 pages on its own suggests either that it is the very model of detail or that there are an awful lot of delegated powers. In Committee, the Minister advanced two principal arguments for the Government's reliance on regulations, and I should like to challenge each of them. First, she said that it was necessary to preserve flexibility by not pinning the exemptions to a list on the face of the Bill. I quite agree with that, and I have no doubt that thorough consultation, which I hope the Government are committed to, will turn up some worthy exemptions that have not yet occurred to the Minister.
	In the space of just a few minutes, members of the Committee thought of a number of potentially necessary additions to the list, but I do not think that anyone has suggested that a list appearing in schedule 12 need be exhaustive. The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) does not seek to address matters like the prophesy of future technological advances, or to start listing all trade tools that might conceivably stand in the line of fire—wigs and gowns included. However, a list included in schedule 12 merely needs to cover some of the ground as an explicit indication of the Government's intentions, and one which has statutory authority.
	That brings me to the second of the Minister's arguments, which was that the paucity of parliamentary time would make any list contained in the Bill entirely untenable because of the scant opportunity to amend it. But that perfectly reasonable objection could be overcome by the simple addition of a reference to any further regulations that the Minister should, from time to time, need to lay before Parliament. I assume that I am right in thinking that the Government would not envisage the need to come to Parliament to repeal the protection that the amendment offers to guide dogs. The Minister will be glad to hear that I shall not devote any further time to the potential inequity of canine repossession, but will she address one question that arose from my reading of the detailed policy statement?
	Paragraphs 143 and 144 concern situations in which enforcement officers may take control of goods that would normally be exempted but that have a value beyond their common use and can therefore be easily replaced. The guidance gives the example of an antique dining table, which could easily be replaced by a utilitarian table in order to release some value. How does the Minister envisage that process operating in practice, given that enforcement officers will not be replacing like with like? That seems to be a recipe for confusion or even abuse.
	If the enforcement officers take the table and replace it, who meets the cost of the replacement until such a time as the original is sold, and what provision is made for the cost of the related logistics? Enforcement officers could spend a considerable sum on finding replacements for otherwise exempted items—for example, money would be spent on buying and transporting them—but the underlying debt might not be reduced at all by the whole process. Perhaps the Minister could comment on the complexity and the potential for abuse represented by the guidance. I do not wish to go any wider of the amendment, but I hope that she will reconsider the Government's position on the inclusion of a list in the schedule.
	Finally, I deal with amendment No. 15 which relates to single women and children. I am conscious that the issue has already been addressed at some length, but I wish to make two points. First, it seems an entirely reasonable proposition that single women—by which I mean women on their own—should be dealt with by female enforcement officers. It is a well established principle that searches by police, Customs officers and security staff are sensitive to gender, because searches are invasive. Visits by bailiffs are similarly invasive and deserve to be treated with comparable sensitivity.
	Secondly, on the issue of children under the age of 16, the amendment is necessary to reinforce the available protection. The Minister confirmed in Committee that there is something of a lacuna between the protection offered to children under 12 and that offered to children under 18. If the only person on the premises is under 12, the bailiff is required to withdraw, but if there is someone aged between 12 and 18 the bailiff is entitled to make inquiries before leaving. The protections deal only with situations in which a child is home alone and do not address the position of children who are otherwise subjected to a visit by a bailiff. I hope that the Minister will comment on that situation. I am conscious that she will argue that bailiffs will be trained in how to deal with children and other vulnerable people, but I just question whether that is enough.

Vera Baird: As everyone has said, this is quite a sizeable group of amendments. I will deal with them painstakingly and thoroughly, although I hope not tediously. The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) talked about the Englishman's castle again. I want to quote briefly from an article in  The Times, which said:
	"An 'Englishman's castle' fuss will always erupt when someone claiming special rights wants the portcullis raised. The argument is every bit as old as the language it is couched in. Victor Tunkel, secretary of the legal-history group the Selden Society, explains that creditors even in Anglo-Saxon times had a 'right of distress', allowing them to 'seize a bloke's best beast, the tools of his trade"—
	we do not want to do that—
	"or his bed'. Royal tax collectors similarly were seldom shy of crossing the threshold, and history has offered few ruder awakenings than 'Open up in the name of the King!' All that has changed is the volume and complexity of the law".
	We intend to protect the vulnerable and to ensure that the law is known to the public. I have already mentioned on many occasions, both in Committee and in the Chamber, the extent to which we will go to ensure that the Bill does exactly that. The hon. Gentleman makes much play of the increased powers in the Bill. He knows that I have undertaken that, until there is a satisfactory and full regulatory process in place, and a complaints system and a licensing system, the new power that he is particularly concerned about—breaking into houses—will not be introduced. I am at a loss as to what the hon. Gentleman thinks anyone could possibly add to that.
	The hon. Gentleman tells horror story after horror story, but I could do the same thing because I, too, have a citizens advice bureau and vulnerable people in my constituency. I do not doubt that Redcar has as many rogue bailiffs as his constituency and that of the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newmark). That is exactly why we are introducing the new regime. This part of the Bill is designed to put an end to precisely the kind of mischief about which we have heard.
	The hon. Member for Braintree made an attractive speech, as ever. Contrary to his assertion, I have no kind of bible under lock and key anywhere in my possession. The bailiffs bible, which he mentioned, was made available to a body that asked for it—perhaps it was the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust—with redacted passages. He says that I keep the document secret, but I offered each and every member of the Public Bill Committee the opportunity to look at the document without the redacted bits. Who has come to look at it? No one.
	Let me deal first with amendment No. 8. Hon. Members might recall that there was some discussion in Committee about clause 84 and the application of part 3 to the Crown. There are already statutory obligations on the Crown to ensure that creditors who might be owed money by the Crown are paid. The Crown can be sued and it cannot ignore any judgment made against it by a court. Section 25 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 makes provision for the satisfaction of orders against the Crown. The Crown will thus not escape its obligations simply because it is exempt from enforcement under schedule 12.
	As a matter of fact amendment No. 8 would not work, because although it would allow an enforcement agent to use the power in schedule 12 against the Crown to take control of or to sell goods, the agent would not be able to enter premises to get them in the first place. He would thus be able to take control of or sell only Crown goods found on premises occupied by a third party. I am sure that that is not what anyone intends. Given that it is clear that existing provisions will ensure that orders against the Crown will be satisfied, there is no need for the amendment.
	I acknowledge the good intentions behind amendment No. 68, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). Indeed, there are good intentions behind all his amendments, including even his rebellion-causing new clause. Contracts between Her Majesty's Courts Service and enforcement companies for the enforcement of unpaid magistrates courts fines are already published. They are available on the departmental website.
	While the Department has no direct control over the contractual negotiations that local authorities carry out when tendering out work to outside enforcement companies for the enforcement of parking fines and local taxes, we would certainly consider that the publication of such contracts would be good practice. However, hon. Members should bear in mind the fact that that many local authorities do not contract out such services. They are often carried out in-house by directly employed members of a local authority's staff. In that case, the contract would be a contract of employment between the local authority and its employee and the publication of such a contract would be intrusive, improper and unnecessary. However, I hope that my assertion is sufficiently strong to allow my hon. Friend to feel that real steps forward have been made.
	Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 13, 15 and 41 are concerned with protecting the vulnerable. As I have said many times, I agree entirely with the sentiments behind the amendments, as will hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am surprised and sorry that anyone thinks that schedule 12 is gobbledegook. I think that it is straightforward and easy to understand.
	National standards have been talked about. Although I do not have a chained-up Bible, I have a copy of the national standards in question: "Effective Enforcement"—the national standards for enforcement agents. They will be reflected in the new enhanced and extended certification process for enforcement agents who are not Crown employees but who will work through the county court. They will also be reflected in future regulation by the Security Industry Authority, when that fine day dawns. The training requirements for enforcement agencies will ensure that all agents have a thorough working knowledge of all the relevant areas of enforcement law and of the national standards.
	Agents will have to comply with many other things to undertake enforcement work, and the training will cover those requirements. Agents will need to be able to deal with potentially dangerous or aggressive situations, develop negotiating skills and understand and acquire the ability to deal with vulnerable or potentially vulnerable debtors, as well as undergoing enhanced criminal record checks. I have already alluded to the fact that the deposit of a bond will be required, and that it could be used and forfeited if there was a breach of certification.
	Crown-employed enforcement agents will continue to be subject to their own high standards of training and guidance, which include diversity awareness and dealing with the vulnerable and with potentially vulnerable situations. As I have repeatedly said, no one disputes the fact that there is little complaint about those people. I reiterate that the intention is for a commonality of standards in the future among those against whom there is no complaint, so as to bring up to those standards those against whom there is complaint—in so far as those people survive in the industry at all, because if they are cowboys, they will be out at first base.

Vera Baird: I do not feel trapped. The hon. Gentleman makes an inappropriate inquiry, if I may say so, but the question is not as simple as he suggests. Somebody who breached their licence or certificate in a fairly minor way, which might still be couched in terms of a breach of national standards, might not automatically lose their licence. The hon. Gentleman will recall that a range of penalties is available to the county court judge, who may, when dealing with a complaint in certain circumstances, think it appropriate to summon the bailiff before him and tell him off. Many steps would be taken before actually ending somebody's livelihood, but I have no doubt that in serious or repeated breaches of standards judges will act appropriately and with rigour. Similarly, the SIA will implement the standards with rigour.
	On amendment No. 15, I am not sure why the hon. Member for Braintree and others consider it necessary to include a specific provision for dealing with premises where the occupant is known to be a single woman, in the sense of a woman alone. What about protecting women who are not known to be on their own? The distinction is arbitrary. The process is not intrusive in the way that searches by police officers are. We are talking about a bailiff knocking on the door and presumably, as a rule, seeking walking possession. That is not about personal searches or anything that requires gender-specific treatment, so we think there is no need for the amendment. The training requirements will include training in how to identify and deal with vulnerable and potentially vulnerable debtors.
	After consultation, and if it is considered appropriate, regulations made under paragraph 24 of schedule 12 will reflect those parts of the national standards that state that, on discovering that the only person on the premises is a child, the enforcement agent should withdraw immediately, without making further inquiries. If those regulations were breached, remedies would be available under paragraph 66 of the schedule. That would put that part of the national standards into a higher, more immediate category, and a separate code of conduct and separate responsibilities to comply with the code would therefore become unnecessary.
	Our proposals go beyond what amendment No. 41 is designed to achieve. In particular, the status of the guidance issued by the Lord Chancellor and the sanctions that would be available if an enforcement agent chose to ignore it is not clear. Concepts such as "vulnerability" are difficult to put in statutory terms, and generic definitions would make it difficult to predict who would fall into the vulnerable category. What is important is good character, accredited training and getting people who do not behave properly or understand their responsibilities out of the business entirely.
	Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 12, 19 and 36 are about exempt goods and are similar to amendments that were debated in Committee. Our intention is that both the general definition of exempt goods and the specific list of goods themselves will be clearly set out in regulations. The hon. Member for Braintree will remember that during the Committee debate, hon. Members suggested a number of goods that, thanks to technical innovation, are now considered to be essential to a debtor's livelihood. That made the point that any list put into statute could never be exhaustive because circumstances change.
	Furthermore, to change a statute takes a lot of parliamentary time. A regulation made under a statute carries just as much statutory authority: it is the law—not in exactly the same way, but just as patently as if it were statute—yet it can be refined, tidied up, added to and taken away from far more easily than amending a statute, which would occupy parliamentary time which, to be frank, ought to be occupied by much more high-level matters. Appropriate scrutiny is available for the list, but as I understand it, the hon. Gentleman's concern is not about the contents of the list, but about where the list is put—into which document. Our clear view is that regulation is the right place for it.
	The hon. Gentleman will also remember that when an amendment suggesting a list of goods was debated in Committee, we looked at the list in the policy statement that we issued some time ago stating how we would use the powers in the Bill and found some differences between the two lists. That made the point that if we make a list, someone will have a bright idea about an item that should be added to it. What is proposed in the amendment is far too rigid— [ Interruption. ] The hon. Gentleman says, "Okay."
	I understand that hon. Members have concerns about debating the provisions in advance of seeing the regulations, but the policy statement fills that gap. In paragraphs 133 to 136 of that statement we set out the goods that we currently think should be exempted, and they include tools of the trade.
	Under amendment No. 25, a debtor would have to sign a form stating that notice had been received before goods could be taken away. I understand the concern, but it would enable people to thwart efforts to take control of goods by declining to sign the form. That would undermine the remedy, which is quite a good one.

Vera Baird: I did not really want to quibble on this subject, but the fact is that if recipients are knowing debtors, as we envisage they will be, if a recorded delivery letter came along, they would probably be very suspicious of it. The point is that we cannot say whether Mrs. X in Great Grimsby knew what the contents of the recorded delivery letter were, but we can say that refusing to sign for the letter is a sure way of thwarting the whole process. It would not allow us to go ahead with the seizure of goods or walking possession, although I thought that everyone in the Chamber, no matter what their party, thought that that was a desirable remedy that should be used—albeit with great care, as we have been at pains to set out.
	I have dealt with a great many of the other amendments. On amendment No. 26, it is suggested that we should limit the value of the goods to be seized to the value of the debt owed, but that is a difficult line to draw finely. We have said in paragraph 12(1) of schedule 12 that an enforcement agent will take control only of goods that are proportionate to the value of the debt owed, plus any future costs. That seems to us to be the right way forward.
	Amendment No. 27 would make a distinction between goods seized on the highway and goods seized in other ways. I have already addressed the principle: we think that the measure would just add confusion and would not improve matters. On the issue of abandoned goods—again, this is a concern raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby—the goods have to be sold for the best price. If goods that have been in a legally conducted sale are left unsold, they will be deemed abandoned. That is intended to protect to debtor from an enforcement agent keeping the debtor's goods indefinitely until they are eventually sold, possibly after many attempts.
	Amendment No. 3 on information sheets is a Liberal Democrat amendment. We will provide a large amount of information, and the information on the sheet proposed by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) is just a very small part of what we will make available. His amendment is, I fear, unclear, but he can rest assured that his aim, which is to ensure that people are entitled to know their rights, will be met. An enforcement agent has to provide a notice before action commences and after entering premises, as the hon. Gentleman knows. That is expressed in schedule 12.
	Amendment No. 7, which is about legal aid, would insert a requirement that regulations must
	"make provision for legal aid to be available where financially necessary"
	in all actions that are to be bought in the High Court, irrespective of the merits of the application. We just could not tolerate that; as the hon. Gentleman knows, there are merits and means tests for all legal aid applications, so that would be a great crashing change.
	I hope that I have reassured hon. Members. We will protect the public and we will ensure that there is good information available to them, so that they know their rights. Part of that process will take place through legislation. I have dealt in detail with most of the amendments in the group, and I hope that hon. Members now feel that they can withdraw them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 84, page 99, line 20, at end insert
	'(including provenance and if appropriate ownership) on a public register for the purpose of inviting any person who asserts a claim to that object to raise an objection to its inclusion in the exhibition within a specified period.'.
	No. 85, page 100, line 10, at end insert—
	'(9A) The Secretary of State shall make regulations for the establishment of an independent committee, such as the Spoliation Advisory Committee, to monitor the publication and reporting of specified information, the compliance of museums and galleries with the Due Diligence Guidelines for Museums, Libraries and Archives on Collecting and Borrowing Cultural Material published from time to time by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the handling of claims made or objections raised in relation to any object.'.
	No. 86, page 101, line 4, clause 131, at end insert—
	'(2A) It shall be a condition of such approval that any approved institution has agreed to apply to each and every object the Due Diligence Guidelines for Museums, Libraries and Archives on Collecting and Borrowing Cultural Material published from time to time by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.'.
	No. 87, page 101, line 6, clause 131, after 'particular,', insert 'it must withdraw approval'.
	No. 88, page 101, line 10, clause 131, after 'reason),', insert
	'and the institution has failed to improve its procedures having received a warning from the appropriate authority specifying a reasonable time frame in which to do so,'.
	No. 89, page 101, line 12, clause 131, at end insert
	'and, in the case of failure which is capable of remedy, has failed to remedy the failure having received a warning from the appropriate authority specifying a reasonable time frame in which in which to do so.'.

Vera Baird: I applaud the intention behind the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mark Fisher), and I hope that I can give him the satisfaction that he seeks, although not by accepting them. I will write to the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) about his proposition on due diligence and the conflict of laws, if I do not satisfy him with my few words.
	Amendments Nos. 83 and 86 are unnecessary. It is one of the basic principles set out in the due diligence guidelines published by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport that a museum should not acquire or borrow any item unless it is satisfied that there are no legal or ethical doubts about that item. This means that a museum will have to apply the due diligence guidelines in relation to every single item that it wishes to borrow. Failure to do so will amount to failure to comply with the guidelines. As clause 131(3)(a) makes clear, this would threaten the approved status of the museum.
	Amendment No. 84 is also unnecessary. We intend to require museums to publish sufficient information about a particular object to ensure that it can be identified by anyone who may have an interest in that object. This will require the publication of some information on provenance, but we do not think that it is necessary for the full provenance of an object to be published in every case. Where, for example, the object concerned is a 17th century painting that was acquired by the Metropolitan museum in New York in the 19th century and has never left the museum's control, there would appear to be no point in giving full details of its provenance.
	We also propose to require publication of the identity of the lender in advance of an exhibition, when the lender is a public body. More difficult issues arise in relation to the publication of the identity of private owners, and we will be discussing with museums and other interest groups whether and how it would be possible for that information to be made available to potential claimants.
	Amendment No. 85 would require provision to be made for the establishment of a new statutory body. We do not think that that is necessary. The amendment refers to the spoliation advisory panel. That is not a statutory body, and it is not supported by regulations. However, it plays a very valuable role in resolving claims relating to objects lost during the Nazi era that are now in our public collections. Other non-statutory bodies, such as the reviewing committee for the export of works of art, play an equally valuable role in relation to the export of cultural objects.
	DCMS will be working closely with the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council to ensure that the Secretary of State has access to appropriate advice on the due diligence procedures followed by museums seeking approval, and that, following approval, museums' due diligence procedures and their compliance are subject to appropriate monitoring. We accept that it would be beneficial for advice from an independent body to be available to the Secretary of State. DCMS proposes to seek the assistance of the acceptance in lieu panel, an independent body which has experience in considering provenance issues, in monitoring the compliance of museums and galleries with the due diligence requirements. DCMS is having discussions with the panel on how such assistance may be offered.
	Amendments Nos. 87 to 89 relate to the withdrawal of approval from museums. We do not believe that it is necessary either to limit the discretion given to the appropriate authority in clause 131(3), as amendment No. 87 seeks to do, or to prescribe the procedures that must be followed if a museum is considered not to have undertaken adequate due diligence procedures or to have failed to comply with regulations requiring additional information to be given on request, as amendments Nos. 88 and 89 seek to do.
	The Secretary of State is required to act reasonably and proportionately in exercising any discretionary power, and this applies to the power in clause 131(3) as much as to any other power. Removal of approved status in the cases set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection without any warning, and without giving a reasonable time for a museum to rectify the faults that have been identified, would be regarded as acting unreasonably in any case where a museum's failures, either in relation to due diligence or to the provision of information, could be easily rectified.
	However, we would wish to reserve the power to act without notice in any case in which this could be justified. We want museums to know that if, after they have received approval under these provisions, they decide that it is no longer necessary to carry out any due diligence, there is a risk that their approved status will be removed with little or no warning. I hope that what I have said has reassured my hon. Friend, and that he now feels able to withdraw his amendments.

Austin Mitchell: I join the chorus of praise. The Bill is leaving the House in a better form than when it arrived. In the main, I do not quibble with most of its provisions, especially those on debt management and relief. My interest has been concentrated on the provisions on bailiffs. I am a latecomer to that debate, so I have been engaged in a catch-up exercise. I am grateful for the advice that I have received from people like Philip Evans about the way in which to catch up.
	My concern about, and interest in, the subject was elicited by the clamping of my daughter's car and a charge of £700. I secured an Adjournment debate on the subject to which the Minister replied charmingly, although the  Grimsby Telegraph categorised my speech as a foul-mouthed rant—we get such reviews from Grimsby. Following that debate, I have become aware that there is a large pool of bitterness and resentment about the behaviour of bailiffs and a need for them to be effectively controlled and regulated. People from throughout the country wrote to me with horror stories that clearly indicated that something needed to be done, and the Bill goes some way towards addressing the alarming situation.
	We face the problem that our society is built on debt. We are all encouraged to take on more debt, and some people are carrying crippling burdens of debt. All the fixed penalty fines that are imposed add to such debt, and those fines are a particular burden for the poor and vulnerable. It is interesting that Liberal, Conservative and Labour Members are concerned about the possible oppression of the poor and vulnerable that is caused by the burden of debt. We are seeing penalties on poverty for people at the bottom of the social scale. Members are in a fairly comfortable position because we do not face bailiffs banging on our doors—at least I do not think that we do. It is interesting that since the housing allowance for Members of Parliament became so generous, we have ceased to be interested in housing problems. As we are fairly comfortable and well off, we are less interested than we should be in the problems of the poor, but they are very real. A large section of society is struggling with the burden of debt. A visit from the bailiffs—

Simon Hughes: This has been a momentous afternoon. In less than seven hours, one Prime Minister has answered his last Question Time and indicated his intention to stand down not only as Prime Minister but also as a Member of Parliament. The Chancellor of Exchequer of this morning has become the Prime Minister of this afternoon. The Bill, which came into Parliament from the Department for Constitutional Affairs, leaves as a Bill from the Ministry of Justice. I think I am right in saying that when it receives its Third Reading and Royal Assent it will be the first Bill from the new Ministry; indeed, it may also be the first Bill of the new prime ministership to receive Royal Assent.
	The Bill is important in terms of history, but it is important in its own right, too, and I congratulate the Government. The Bill is another indication that they are interested in justice reform—of the system and the courts—which has been necessary for a long time.
	The first part of the Bill reforms tribunals and gives them a structure, which is necessary and welcome. Like the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) and others, my only reservation is about how the general commissioners for taxes and their clerks will be dealt with, but we have made our views clear on that. There are some welcome proposals on judicial appointments, which met with no dissent on either side of the House.
	The measures on debt management and relief are also welcome. As the Minister and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said, we are all aware that we live in a debt-ridden, debt-shackled society, where the chains are getting longer and the pressures are becoming greater all the time. It is important to help people to manage debt and get out of it. I am sure that every MP regularly confronts people in that position in their surgery; it is a sad fact of our society that pressures to buy are so great that they can overtake the possibility of survival. For some people at the lower end of the income scale that has always been the case, but more people are affected, and more severely and dangerously.
	The last point of complete assent was that we needed to do something about cultural objects on loan in the UK. We have made progress and protected those objects in a better regime.
	A more controversial subject was how we should deal with bailiffs, enforcement agents and others who have the right to enter people's homes or businesses, or to take their property. There has been dispute about that issue. As well as amendments in Committee, four Opposition amendments and one Labour Back-Bench amendment were tabled today. None succeeded, but the Minister gave us some useful and welcome assurances during the passage of the Bill, not least that the new powers will come into force only when the new protection—the new regulatory structure—is in place. That was the most welcome change in the Government's position and we backed it with much appreciation.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Jenny Willott) and I enjoyed serving in Committee and doing our duty on the Bill. We realise that it is important, but the work is not yet done. As the hon. Member for Great Grimsby reminded us, not only do we live in an age of much more debt, but also one where there are 266 powers under which people can enter the homes of our citizens. We have managed to circumscribe some of them in relation to debt and the collection of debt, but many others remain uncontrolled in a way that the citizen does not understand. There remains work for the Department and for Parliament to do to make sure that we give citizens more rights as well as allow people properly to enforce the debts that are owed to them.
	My final reflection is that although there may have been much more interest today in the Executive than in the legislature, the legislature has continued to do its job today while others around us are doing theirs. In the end, it is the laws that are passed as well as the policies of Ministers that most influence people's lives. This is an important Bill and I hope that many people will benefit from it.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Mark Pritchard: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this important subject. Given the current impasse in Kosovo, tonight's debate is timely. First, however, I think it only right to put on the record our remembrance of those people across the ethnic divide in former Yugoslavia who suffered for such a long time, with many thousands losing their lives in the conflict.
	The debate on Kosovo's future status has reached a crucial point. United Nations special envoy Martti Ahtisaari's final comprehensive proposal for a Kosovo status settlement still does not have universal agreement, and it is that lack of consensus which is causing the current road-block to progress. The United States, backed by the UK, although understandably eager to see a Kosovo settlement, is perhaps in danger of being a little too eager in calling for a new UN resolution to be adopted "as soon as possible". At this sensitive juncture, such a resolution might be unhelpful and awkwardly premature. It was not over-constructive of President Bush to declare in Tirana two weeks ago that "Kosovo is independent". The comments might have played well in Albania, but they did little to advance a consensus-based settlement. A unilateral declaration by the United States and the United Kingdom would also serve to undermine an already weakened United Nations.
	Clearly, an early settlement to the Kosovo question is desirable to all players. Failure to make progress would set back the timetable for Kosovo's and Serbia's applications to become members of the European Union, and would also impact on other candidate countries in the region.
	It is in the interests of Europe and the region that a settlement be agreed, but it needs to be a lasting settlement that stands the test of time—and tests will surely come. German Chancellor Merkel was right to say at the G8 summit that Europe's leaders want a consensus-based solution, but that consensus should be based on agreement between Serbia and Kosovo, not agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States. The US and the UK should not underestimate the resolve of the Serbian people on that matter, and should not overestimate the attraction of future EU membership for Serbia. Yes, jobs are important, but long-term jobs and investment in both Kosovo and Serbia can be sustained in the long-term only if there is long-term peace.
	The United States has impressive insight into and knowledge of geopolitics, but to suggest that the US has a greater knowledge of the Balkans than Kosovo's near neighbours, such as Slovakia, Romania and Russia, is misguided. I do not wish to be unnecessarily critical of the UK Government, but once again it appears that they are falling in behind the position of the American State Department and, more importantly, the White House, rather than trying to realign the US's position, which would be more helpful to all those involved in the process.
	There is still time for the UK Government to adopt a "candid friend" approach, but time is running out. I reiterate that there are great dangers in trying to force through a plan without consensus. If consensus cannot be achieved, we should try to make progress, with fewer areas of disagreement; there is a distinction between the two. The Minister for the Middle East will know that peace—true peace that lasts—is not written on scrolls and treaties, but on the hearts and minds of peoples and populations. That brings me on to Russia. As the record suggests, I have been critical of Russia on many occasions, but on the issue of Kosovo I think that Russia is right in saying that there needs to be a negotiated solution, rather than an imposed solution. Notwithstanding that, Russia should not wittingly or unwittingly allow its view on the status settlement to be entangled by wider fears about European expansion. It is not just in Europe's interests, but in Russia's own strategic interest, for there to be peace in the Balkans.
	What can be done to make progress? First, there should be full implementation of Security Council resolution 1244, as regards the conditions in which Kosovo's Serbs live. Secondly, Kosovo's Prime Minister, Mr. �eku, needs fully to recognise how far Serbia has come, and he should not make unreasonable demands of President Tadic. He also needs to ensure that Kosovo's expectations are managed appropriately internally. That, of course, should be done through peaceful means. Mr. �eku's Government need to agree on multi-ethnic symbols for the future of the Kosovo state. They should also ensure that more robust measures, and not just measures for the protection of Serbian religious sites, are put in place to protect the Serb minority.
	The United States Administration should allow some modifications to the Ahtisaari plan, such as the creation of the post of special envoy for minorities, and the setting of a five-year moratoriumI am flexible about the length of the moratoriumbefore Kosovo can apply for UN membership. Washington, London, Berlin and Pristina need to avoid using the pretext of pro-Kosovo independence violence on the streets of Pristina to try and rush through a settlement. Such a policy could fuel further genuine and/or orchestrated violent protests in Pristina, and further such protests in response in Belgrade.
	I should like to ask the Minister why the UK Government dismissed so quickly the proposal to split the Ahtisaari plan. First, we could consider ensuring that Kosovo's Government improved the lives of the 100,000 Serbs still living in Kosovo, as I said earlier, but robust measures should be taken. Perhaps it could be implicit that after that, there would be a process leading towards statehood at a later agreed date. Perhaps the Government need to revisit that possibility. Does the Minister agree that both the letter and spirit of resolution 1244 on the protection of minority rights should remain a precondition of the status issue? Sustainable social, economic and political equilibrium is clearly needed if peace is to be maintained in the region.
	I am conscious of Kosovo's status post-settlement, and I hope that in trying to ensure a peaceful future for the Balkansperhaps intervention through NATO should only have ever been a temporary military measure, not a long-term political interventionthe United States, the UK and their partners should ensure they do all they can to make sure that Kosovo does not become, over time, a base camp for the radicalisation of the Balkans.

Mark Pritchard: Absolutely. My hon. Friend, as ever, makes a pertinent and well put point, and I pay tribute to all the members of Her Majesty's armed services who served, or are serving, in the Balkans. He will know that more than 200 members of the intelligence corps and signal regiment are serving in Kosovo today, and the former Prime Minister was right to refer to that in the House today.
	May I touch on common foreign policy? In his recent European Council statement to the House, former Prime Minister Blair said that it was
	important that Europe has a common foreign and security policy.
	I fundamentally disagree with the breadth of the statement. In the same reply, Mr. Blair unwittingly underlined the very reason why such a policy is unworkable. He said that
	in relation to Iran, Kosovo or how we make progress in the middle east...it should allow us to have a European position.[ Official Report, 25 June 2007; Vol. 462, c. 28.]
	Perhaps the Minister can remind the new Prime Minister that there is no common European position on Kosovo. Slovakia, Romania and Greece all have major reservations about taking the Ahtisaari plan en bloc. If Europe cannot agree a common foreign policy position in its own backyard, how can it agree a common position on the many global challenges that will face us and unravel over the coming years and decades?
	In conclusion, if the American Administration make a unilateral declaration on Kosovo's independence, that could precipitate exactly the same action from the Assembly of Kosovo and Prime Minister �eku. That would be a huge and dangerous step backwards, which is why a new timetable for a new settlement agreement would be helpful to everyone involved. Negotiations cannot continue in perpetuityI accept that eight years working towards a settlement is long enoughand the limbo should end. Further clarity and reassurance are needed, not alarm and threats. There is a great deal of difference between a timetable towards a new consensus resolution and the imposition of a resolution. Yes, progress needs to be made, but it must be proportionate to the extant goodwill within the process, not disproportionate. I hope that our new Prime Minister will start his premiership by encouraging the United States to listen more and first rather than after the damage is done. Diplomatic short cuts seldom provide long-term solutions for peace, and the price of getting a Kosovo settlement wrong would be very costly indeed.

Andrew MacKinlay: Yes, and Tirana is doing that. Sometimesout of either ignorance or malevolencesome people exaggerate the desire of Albania and try to imply that there is strong irredentist movement there. That is not proven; in fact, a resolution of this matter will probably guarantee that that does not happen. Albania is on board for the kind of scenario and solution that, rather inadequately, I fear, I am outlining. Albania aspires to EU membership and has no desire to take Kosovo into its territory.
	We must advance the carrot of EU membership simultaneously for Kosovo-Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and the other states of the former Yugoslavia that are outside the EU. If we can bring them in more or less simultaneously, many of the ingredients that create anxieties, jealousies and problems involving property rights will be minimised. I would have thought that the Hong Kong-plus scenario is the way in which Her Majesty's Government should proceed. They could say, We broadly accept the Ahtisaari plan, but we don't think that we should be talking at present, or in the foreseeable future, about a seat at the United Nations or a single legal personality as a sovereign independent state. Let's proceed according to the precedent of what happened with Hong Kong and China.
	I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reflect on that and will take my word that, outside the UK, there is a view that the Ahtisaari plan, which provides independence fairly immediately, will not succeed and will not get through the UN Security Council. The great danger of President Bush's action is that if the plan is vetoed at the Security Councilthat would be disastrous, so I would prefer it not to be put therethere will be people in the United States who will encourage a unilateral declaration of independence in Pristina. That would be catastrophic, in my view.
	The United States would then probably recognise Kosovo unilaterally, and there would be a major split in the EU which, whatever our views of the EU, none of us wants. It would send all the wrong signals around the world about the solidarity of Europe. Countries such as Spain, Hungary, Slovakia and others would be very unhappy about breaking the principles of the Helsinki Final Act, given all the ethnic minorities in their countries. It would be disastrous if a unilateral declaration of independence were to be coaxed or encouraged by the United States, or by the clumsy handling of other European states.
	We tend to think, wrongly, that Kosovo is a territory where overwhelmingly there are Kosovan Albanians. Of course, even today there are in the territory significant numbers of Serbs in enclaves, who are feeling quite frightened. There are precious cultural and, mainly Orthodox, religious sites in Kosovo, which are very important to people and are guarded by troops from NATO, the European Union and other countries who have contributed, very helpfully, over the years. There are also people who have fled their homes in Kosovo and are living on the north bank of the city of Mitrovica.
	It would be careless to grant independence to Kosovo without recognising those people, who have a moral right of return to their properties and their cultural and religious sites. If they were ignored, some people would find that unacceptable and could resort to guerrilla warfare. There are extreme nationalists in Serbian politics who would exploit that situation. We would hang out to dry the sensible and brave people in Serbian political life who want to bring their country and the other countries of the former Yugoslavia into the wider European family. We have an obligation those brave people, who have come a long way, particularly over the past two or three years. There is a fragile parliamentary-based Government in Belgrade to whom we need to give as much support as we can. I counsel the MinisterI hope that he will continue in office next week, but this might have to be in his final hours as a Ministerto do what he can, or to leave on the file his desire at least to reflect on the idea of Hong Kong-plus.

Michael Penning: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) on securing the debate and articulating so much knowledge about a very complicated subject. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), who, I am sure, understands the subject far better than I do.
	Without delaying the House for too long, I want to join other Members in trying to encourage the Minister to slow down. We have heard a lot about big-tent politics in the past few days, and if there is one part of the world where we need big-tent politics, it is the Balkans. It is absolutely crucial that we do not assume that, as a Library paper said recently, the only main players are those that were there in 1994America, the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Russia. The picture is much bigger than that. Sadly, so much blood was shed to get to the position where we are now, both before NATO got involved and subsequently. We must not forget the desperate situation in Kosovo before the NATO troops were there. I pay tribute from the Conservative Back Benches to the former Prime Minister for the work that he did to help to secure peace in Kosovo.
	We must not do anything that jeopardises the extraordinarily delicate situation in the Balkans. If we push ahead, perhaps for the sake of our American colleagues and their political situation, and ignore that delicate situation, we will imperil not only the people of the Balkans but, again, our own troops. That part of the world has a very delicate history. We should not forge ahead with an outcome that the majority of people in Serbia and in Kosovo are not on board with, so that they feel that it is being imposed on them by the Contact group, nor should we ignore the views of the other countries involved, including Greece and Albania.
	I am not a great lover of the European Union, but it has its uses. If we can create peace in Europe, especially in the Balkans where it has been so difficult to achieve over the centuries, by encouraging these countries to join the EUto see the bigger picture and be part of the European movementthat is one aspect of the EU that I am sure that British taxpayers would be happy to pay for.
	As I said, I do not want to detain the House. The Minister has heard the message this evening that we should not push forward too fast. If more hon. Members were present, I am sure that he would have heard the same sentiments from them. Eight years is a short time in the history of the Balkans. We have a golden opportunity, for which British and NATO soldiers have paid with their lives, to have lasting peace in that part of the world. I urge the Ministeror whoever will be in postthe new Foreign Secretary and the new Prime Minister to say, when they visit their American counterparts, Slow down. Give these people a chance to be involved. Don't exclude them or impose anything on them. Excluding them or imposing a solution could put the rest of Europe in jeopardy.

Kim Howells: Such a split would lose the careful balance that, we believe, runs through the Ahtisaari proposals. It would simply not work on the ground. Two thirds of the Ahtisaari proposals set out safeguards and benefits for the Kosovo Serbs. It would be difficult to convince the Kosovo Albanians to implement those elements of the proposals if the issue of status were left unresolved.
	In addition, I firmly believe that NATO and the EU would not be prepared to invest the necessary resources in trying to implement an unworkable arrangement. Both those international bodies stand ready to implement the Ahtisaari settlement. We need a sustainable outcome that will generate stability. Proposals for, say, a phased settlement will lead to the opposite unless it is clear that the end destination is supervised independence, as recommended by Ahtisaari. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the special envoy concluded, and all observers of the status process agreed, that over the course of the negotiations the positions of the parties on the crucial issue of status diverged. We should not be under any illusion that further negotiations would lead to a negotiated outcome.
	The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead drew attention to the fact that, in terms of the history of the Balkans, eight years is not a long time. As someone who has always been passionately interested in history, I suppose that, relatively, it is not a long time. But for the minorities within the former Yugoslavia that have been suffering, it is a long time. They are looking forward to giving their children the opportunity of a better education and a better life within their country, instead of having to move away from the western Balkans, as so many have done, to find work, the dignity of a paid job and some semblance of a sustainable future.

Kim Howells: Yes. We want to see a UN resolution come forward, and we want to see it sooner rather than later. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the dates of the Security Council deliberation on the subject, but I will try to find out for him when it might be timetabled. We are determined that the time has come for the Security Council to make this decision and we will discuss that with Russia, which is an extremely important player, for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrockamong othersdescribed.
	In the interests of showing that no stone has been left unturned in the search for a solution, I welcome the idea from President Sarkozy for a further period for a final round of talks between the parties. But it must be clear that if they fail to agree, we must move forward on the basis of Ahtisaari's proposals.
	We can either bring the process to completion or consign it to the too difficult tray. For the reasons that the hon. Members for The Wrekin and for Hemel Hempstead have given, that would be a very risky move. It would remind me too much of the mistakes that were made early on, when Yugoslavia broke up. The latter course carries real risks for the stability of the region. The situation will not stand still. The lesson from the 1990s in the Balkans is that drift leads to instability. The choice is to tackle Kosovo in a smooth and orderly way on the basis of a UN process endorsed by the Security Council, or to find ourselves reacting to future events in way that could involve far greater challenges.
	What of Serbia in all this? It is important to say something about it. I want to be clear that bringing the Kosovo status process through to completion is not and should not be seen as punishing Serbia. We understand the strong emotions that this issue can arouse, but this process is about putting in place the right outcomethe only realistic outcome from our point of viewfor Kosovo. I want to see both countries and both Kosovo Serb and Kosovo Albanian communities prospering and moving forward towards EU and NATO membership, if that is what they want.
	There has been some progress by Serbia in recent weeks. The chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia told the UN Security Council on 18 June that the Serb authorities had
	expressed a clear commitment to provide all necessary assistance to locate and arrest the remaining fugitives.
	That has started to deliver results, with the arrest of two fugitive indictees in recent weeks. Against that background, the European Commission restarted
	 The motion having been made at Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put,  p ursuant to the Standing Order.
	 Adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock.